Talk:United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017

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


As is want to happen, a number of "endorsements" are showing up. Many of them are from non-Notable people. (And others are poorly sourced.) These endorsements are contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION. Also, simply because the endorser has some public presence does not mean they are WP:NOTABLE or that their endorsement is WP:NOTEWORTHY. If these people are notable, we ought to follow WP:WTAF. I submit that limiting the endorsements to notable individuals/organizations is the best way to keep this article encyclopedic, and not vulnerable to WP:RECENTISM. – S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Aside from that, endorsements should be it’s own section with subsections for each primary and the general, it is especially terrible on mobile as it is now to want to look at info about the general election and then there being this ridiculously long list of the endorsers, it’s an ineffective display of information. (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


I understand we have a pretty lenient policy with regards to polling, but Wikipedia guidelines generally recommend at least having a well-known source reporting on the issue. I've taken away the recent Google poll since it doesn't seem to come from a recognized pollster. The CB Polling outlet has never received any news coverage and has only ever released 3 polls. Their Twitter page is short, unprofessional, and incorrectly designed, so I want to make sure we're not using any fabricated results. The two from Strategy Research were not reported outside of their original publication, and no analysis is included with either. And if we need a description of the results, then the pair of VCR/SLF polls, as well as the one from Great America PAC, will have to be removed too. Supporter of the Campaign (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New csp poll. tweet: website: (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfangxl (talkcontribs)

Known to be a fake pollster. Mélencron (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What? no they arent. Theyve got media mentions from multiple sites and multiple news organizations, theyve been included in polling averages by reputable sites like 538 and politic polls, and have gotten retweeted by verified twitter accounts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfangxl (talkcontribs) 18:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See this FiveThirtyEight piece published in August. Looks like a front for pumpers on prediction markets; toplines and brief demographic breakdowns, but nothing more from them other than that; vague methodological statement (polling "online", but not even mentioning how – most of these are just Google Consumer Surveys tacked onto a WordPress site, but they don't even specify if that's true). And being mentioned by Twitter accounts hardly suffices. Mélencron (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I hate having to ask this question, but the last two polls are throwing me off. I ask that other users keep an eye on these polls as they come out. I am worried that some of polls are not objective enough to provide a clear picture and thereby skewing the article. I would be be watching them myself, but I had to contact the Jones Campaign to get a copyright free picture. I am not the person to be watching polls. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't take these polls for real, too. Jones will never get a result within the forties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Consequences of a withdrawal[edit]

Dear all,
The WashPost-story on alleged sexual abuse is being responded with demands towards Moore to step back.[1][2]
What would be the consequence of a withdrawall? Could the GOP still nominate a candidate or would Jones be on the ballot with just a few outsiders?
Thank you in advance for complementing this in the article, as it has become an issue.
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

SupFeatured blocked as a sock[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational Doug Weller talk 13:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

More Senator disavowals needed to be added[edit]

-Senator Pat Toomey

-Senator Bill Cassidy

WorldClassMemes (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

WorldClassMemes, while I agree politically, I am not sure adding that is a good idea. It could throw the article "off balance." I am asking the community a similar question regarding a quote from Former Vice President Joe Biden. I am hesitant to post it anywhere because it could potentially compromise the integrity of the articles that are part of the Senate Race. Thats my two sense. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Breitbart a credible source for polls?[edit]

I noticed Breitbart was cited for polls. I don't think it's credible. What should be done here? Kart2401real (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Right-wing/pro-Trump outlets have previously published/commissioned legitimate polls (mostly from Gravis Marketing), and I don't see a reason to doubt this result either. Mélencron (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I would also at least question Breitbart as a source for polls or anything else. Are they considered a reliable source in general? They don't seem that much different than the Daily Mail. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular poll that you have in mind? I think, generally speaking, it's more than okay to include their date. As others have already noted, they have had credible data in the past, so there's no real reason to exclude them. CarlsonC (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This really should be asked at WP:RSN with a particular poll in mind. Generally Breitbart is not considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Roy Moore[edit]

American Family Association

Source #1:

Andrew Anglin - American white nationalist

Source #1:

James Allsup - American alt-right commentator

Source #1: Source #2:

Lindsay Graham (Revoked)

Source #1:

Susan Collins (Revoked)

Source #1:

Doug Jones[edit]

Jeff Flake - Republican Senator

Source #1:

Steve Schmidt - Republican campaign strategist and public relations worker for the U.S. Republican Party.

Source #1:

Patton Oswalt - Actor

Source #1:

David Yankovich - Former congressional nominee

Source #1:

George Will - Conservative activist

Source #1:

The Tuscaloosa News

Source #1:

Luther Strange[edit]

-Pat Toomey

Coulter pulls endorsement[edit]

Ann Coulter endorses Mo Brooks and unendorses Roy Moore

Source #1: Source #2: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aefkawnfkawenfjkawnefk (talkcontribs) 22:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This section lacks balance[edit]

After this, certain Republican leaders and conservative organizations withdrew their endorsements of Moore or asked him to drop out of the campaign." This sentence is followed by a list of people who dropped their endorsements, but in order to be balanced it needs to include the fact that over 30% of voters polled as being more likely to vote for Moore due to the allegations, a similar number said it does not matter, and 18% said they didn't know. These defections have not been without controversy, with Steve Bannon remaining loyal as well as a number of others including Jim Ziegler (Alabama State auditor) and most of the rest of the Alabama state republican organization. This has a lot more to do with Trump and Bannon vs. the Republican establishment and the Democrats than this article lets on. Also, the part where it says that Anne Coulter dropped her endorsement makes it sound like she isn't supporting him in the general election. She is supporting him in the general election. The reference was to the primary election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Coulter doesn't support him.[3] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Birmingham News[edit]

Move "Averages" section into "Polling"[edit]

A dispute appears to have arisen over whether or not the "Averages" section, citing the RCP polling average for the race, should be removed, incorporated into polling, or left as is. I think, because of the nature of the information cited, it should be incorporated into polling. I don't think it should be left as is. I also don't think it should be removed, but am willing to change my mind if a good enough reason could be given. Also, a question seems to have arisen over the quality of RealClearPolitics as a credible source. I've seen it cited hundreds of times and never had any problem with their polling data. They're a neutral platform that compiles and averages polling data. I've never really experienced them in a negative way and don't think their content should be removed.CarlsonC (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

RCP, from what I can gather, is only averaging polls. It's not an actual gathering data on what citizens of Alabama think. It does not offer any new material, just averages that have no meaning at all. It's not notable enough or worth including to say that the average of 4 polls indicate 48.5% support for Moore and 45.5% for Jones. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
My reasoning is that RCP's information is meaningful and notable enough to be included in every 2016 Senate race that I've looked at. I think if it passes muster on all of those pages, it is reasonable to conclude that the inclusion of that information on this page is a necessity. Generally, people trust and rely upon RCP to gather all of the reliable polls on their behalf and give them a synthesized average for the race. With that said, I would be willing to get behind moving that information to a place beneath polling, in a place that is less front-and-center, allowing the polling data we've been able to produce to speak for itself, then followed by the information RCP (and, hopefully soon, as other sources start to provide a similar service) that provides their synthesis of the polling data. CarlsonC (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, it offers no insight to Wikipedia users, not politicians, social scientists, data gathers, etc. There are a bunch of averages, not a poll itself. I could do it myself if I wanted to. That's how unnotable and useless it is. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Emerson College Poll[edit]

The poll result from Emerson College, 11/9 - 11/11, is listed as 49%-40% in favor of Moore. However footnote # 307 and the pdf from Emerson that the link points to both say 55%-45%.

I have not edited the article myself for fear of doing it incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dduggan47 (talkcontribs) 04:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"With an “undecided” option provided to voters, Moore led Jones 49%/40%." Strange omission on their part to give a topline excluding them (49/89 = 0.55). Mélencron (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

When would the winner of the special election actually be appointed to the Senate replacing Luther Strange?[edit]

I am suggesting an improvement to the article and I do not know the answer -- When would the winner of the special election actually be appointed to the Senate replacing Luther Strange? (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Larry Becker, Copley, OH

I thumbed through the Title 36 of the Code of Alabama (1975), and found the corner of the law that governs special elections. I'll walk you through it and will hopefully answer your question - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a concrete answer. First, §36-9-7 gives the governor the right to appoint a temporary senator (Sen. Strange) to serve during the gap in time that is created by §36-9-8, which requires the governor to pick the time of the election -- there are rules governing exactly when it may take place. Next, we have §36-9-9, which instructs the governor exactly how to notify Congress (1) when an election will be held and (2) when the election has taken place. From there, we can turn to Title 17 of the Code of Alabama (1975) to show us exactly how the elections in the state of Alabama work - for example, how the results are scrutinized, verified, reported, etc. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to go through those right now, but invite you to do so. Here's a link to the code -> CarlsonC (talk) 14:27, 16 November 20177 (UTC)
I believe that while technically the Senate is supposed to wait until the results are certified to swear in the winner, they can do it after the results are known. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this constitute an endorsement?[edit]

Steve Schmidt, the Republican senior campaign strategist and advisor to the Presidential Campaign of John McCain, has said on Twitter "Every Alabama Republican who processes an ounce of decency will vote for Doug Jones on December 12th. Every GOP member of Congress with an ounce of decency will 1. unendorse 2. demand no party money is spent. 3.refuse to caucus with Moore 4. Call for Moore to drop out."[1]. He has also made a statement on live television encouraging Mitt Romney, John McCain, and other Republicans to endorse Doug Jones beyond simply unendorsing.[2][3]

Does this constitute an endorsement? It seems to scream "endorsement!" to me, but I'm not entirely sure. TenorTwelve (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Encouraging Alabama Republicans to vote for Jones sounds like an endorsement to me. The reason for it (not liking his own party's candidate) doesn't matter. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)



In #Polling, the Fox poll from November 13–15 is split into LV and RV without any explanation. What does that mean?
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely and registered voters. Mélencron (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017[edit]

Add photo of Democratic candidate Doug Jones Change the photo of Roy Moore to a more recent one (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't quite as simple as merely changing the photo to a recent one. It needs to be one with an appropriate copyright that is available for use here. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017[edit]

Put in an official Doug Jones picture instead of his image being blank. Someone must have deleted it because it used to be there. Redbanjo5 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The official photo likely did not have the appropriate copyright license to be used here. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Several major endorsements were previously removed from this page on the grounds that the only source was Breitbart and this was not a reliable source. The endorsements are also listed on Moore's site, which is a primary source. Given the context, where Breitbart was simply covering a statement issued by the campaign, is it appropriate to cite Breitbart? Or is it appropriate to use campaign press releases directly? It seems ridiculous to leave off the endorsements altogether just because no one else covered it. --Jay942942 (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that for an endorsement it's better to use Moore's website than Breitbart. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Image for Doug Jones[edit]

Could someone please insert an image of Doug Jones? It isn't fair that there's one of Moore but not of him. HistManiac25 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a freely-licensed image of Doug Jones. IIRC, Inunotaisho26 has said that Jones's campaign manager agreed to freely license the image so it could be used on Wikipedia, but was never able to follow up with OTRS. Mélencron (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
HistManiac25, Mélencron is correct. I have been trying to get the Jones Campaign to follow up with permissions, but they have not been taking the permissions request seriously. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to find a portrait style image for Jones? This campaign is getting enormous national and international attention. It is essential to put one up ASAP. Even his government photo from the 90's would do as a placeholder until a more recent image can be found. Thriley (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thriley, images have been posted by the official campaign wikimedia account which is DougJones2017. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When does the winner take office (regardless of who wins)?[edit]

As the topic asks, when does the winner take office? --Bmoshier (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the exact time the state of Alabama certifies the election results. The statutes that govern that process are outlined above, in a similar question presented. At the time the winner is declared by the state of Alabama, the Senator's term begins. They will then be sworn in to become a member of the Senate as soon as they get to Washington to do so. I concede that the answer to your question doesn't really exist anywhere, but the rules governing the process the Senate takes are outlined in Title 2 of the United States Code, laying out what steps should be taken if the Senator is elected when the Senate isn't in session (which is a possibility -- I'm not sure when the Senate's Christmas break begins). Usually, a senator is sworn in on January 3 - but, because this is a special election, the rules are a lot less clear. The answer hinges mostly upon when the state of Alabama certifies the results, gets it to the Governor, and she sends the results to the Senate officers. CarlsonC (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: I want to share this PDF from the Congressional Research Office that answers your question. This source cites the Constitutional authority and the proper statutory and senate rules that are used to decide exactly when Senate term begins. CarlsonC (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


Does this constitute an endorsement of Moore by Trump? 331dot (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to conclude that this constitutes an endorsement by POTUS. It would be unreasonable to conclude that he is endorsing one of the independent write-in candidates, such as Mac McBride. For that reason, I included it in the list of endorsements. Unless someone can show that he did not endorse Moore, we should treat those statements as an endorsement. CarlsonC (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That pretty much matches my view. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Google Consumer Surveys[edit]

Hello just curious why people think Google Consumer Surveys are being considered "Fake Polls" and have been removed from Wiki page. Calling polls which have links to Data from Google to be not credible seems like introducing personal bias into editing this article. The poll is being used by legitimate sources like Breitbart -

LisaMcCarthy (talk)

Breitbart is not a "legitimate" source. But best I can tell GCS is just a way to do a survey which doesn't automatically disqualify it. Depends on who's doing the polling. Volunteer Marek  23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; Breitbart is not considered a reliable source in most cases. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean, the results of the poll are not crazy (compare with [4]) and it doesn't appear to be just a random poll somebody did with Google. What is this CB Polling?  Volunteer Marek  23:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I have run Google Surveys (they re-branded it this year) myself in the past. From a predictive point of view, there are a few issues:
  • the file-drawer effect if people only publish polls that support the conclusion they want
  • question-wording may or may not be done in a way to get accurate results
  • limited ability to determine likely voters
  • possible sampling bias of Google Surveys as a whole.
For inclusion here, the case is far simpler. Including polls with only a link to the Google Surveys page is WP:OR if they aren't affiliated with a polling firm or media organization in some way. If they are affiliated with a group, I would expect that group to have a Wikipedia page before including them here. I don't know who CBPolling is and probably wouldn't include a poll from them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
CB Polling is an "outfit" that uses Google Consumer Surveys to conduct its polls. However, at this point I object to the inclusion of any polls conducted with Google Consumer Surveys (except for those conducted by GCS itself or by an existing consulting firm, such as the Republican firm Red Oak Strategic) that aren't reported on elsewhere (most of these outfits never receive any news coverage, and a couple times entirely fabricated poll results have been distributed, as in the Michigan Senate race). There's no transparency in who's behind those outfits and I don't believe that a number of them are even real – IIRC, during the VA governor's race, I removed one poll added where the "about us" page used an image that could be traced to an obituary of an individual by the same name from 2015, and more recently I've found another "group" using a photo from a blog post published on a completely unrelated start-up's site published in 2016. Point is – anyone can field a poll with Google Consumer Surveys, but I'm not convinced that most of them know what they're doing, and it's also produced a proliferation of fake polls by weird acronyms (CSP Polling, for instance, is an abbreviation for "Cuck Shed Polling" – another from the group of those on Discord/PredictIt trying to sway prediction markets). Mélencron (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This poll seems has been cited by professional pollsters/Analysts like DDHQ on Twitter . Not sure why editors seem to consider it unreliable when professional pollsters are using it for Analysis LisaMcCarthy (talk)
DDHQ is just a (once Republican) group of hobbyists who try to provide an alternative to election returns on election nights, and aren't either a pollster/analysts themselves... Mélencron (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  ::: This is from one of your comments in the past ""Often polls from legitimate firms are not well-sourced (obscure tipsheets, MailChimp, files on Scribd or Google Drive, polls commissioned from known pollsters and published by hobbyist political websites based in south Florida), but that doesn't make the firms or the polls themselves illegitimate. (In any case, both polls have also been mentioned in the Birmingham News – so it might just be better to replace the sources for those with that.) Mélencron (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)""

Your actions seem to be very inconsistent. Also the poll (CbPolling) was published by, which I believe is a major political website in Alabama. Can you please comment on why a poll which is being cited by shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia? I am of the opinion that intent of Wikipedia was to report the news and events, instead of trying to be a "one man fact checker" and discrediting polls published by sites like Thankyou. LisaMcCarthy (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Former Vice President Joseph Biden[edit]

I have been asked to put the following quote in this article regarding Doug Jones:

What Doug did wasn’t just for those families. Doug helped remove 40 years of stain and pain from this state. The state has changed. Doug said no more. The klan needed to know that justice would follow them to the gates of hell if need be.[1]

Unfortunately, I can't and won't post something that skews this article one way or another, so I need some guidance. Should this quote be posted on any page and if it should where should it go? Inunotaisho26 (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a conflict of interest given your communications with the campaign to get the image added (which is fine). Mélencron (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what purpose the quote serves in this article; maybe Doug Jones' article itself, but in any event his campaign does not get to dictate what appears on this page or any page related to Jones. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

331dot and Mélencron, I although I am not voting in this election (I've been out of Alabama for to long), I agree with your points. The exact reason why I brought this up with you guys. I can't shake the feeling that even putting the quote in the Jones article might still be too charged. Penny for your thoughts? Inunotaisho26 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it probably shouldn't be in Jones' article either, I'm just not sure what doing so accomplishes. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
331dot, good point. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Koplowitz, Howard (October 3, 2017). "Joe Biden touts Doug Jones' character during Birmingham campaign stop". Retrieved November 21, 2017. 

Map for Democratic primary[edit]

Why is a map using shades of red used to show results of the Democratic primary? Wouldn't it be better to use any other color than red since that's associated with Republicans? 2600:1700:E381:1590:405D:711A:7113:52E (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New poll showing Moore up 7 points[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any source on this poll? I can't find anything by the alleged pollster, there's no link to a poll, and the one question described in the article sounds like a push poll (using "Democrat party" instead of "Democratic party) if one was even conducted. There's been an enormous amount of fake polling for this race to move betting markets, we need to be careful.

I couldn't find anything. But, I did find that Alabama Today, the only site that seems to be reporting this poll by "Sky Research," is lead by Birmingham, AL, based Apryl Marie Fogel, who has direct ties to the RNC, a political outfit named AM Solutions, and the 60 Plus Association -- they're all center right, and, I'm sure if we dig deep enough, we'll see that she has ties to the Moore campaign. Unless this "poll" pops up elsewhere in a credible way, or unless we can get eye on exactly who "Sky Research" is, we should not include the poll in question.CarlsonC (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
We could always specify "Sky Research (R)". MB298 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find anything on Sky Research, either. Mélencron (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've discovered another poll provided to Breitbart, this time from "Atlantic Media and Research". Can't find any indication that the firm actually exists, however: a Newsmax (another rather older right-wing outlet) article from February initially referenced it, but "Atlantic Media and Research" was later changed to "Political Marketing International (PMI)", a known firm, and the only other thing that I can find is a conspiratorial Facebook page. Mélencron (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of fake polls coming out there, some of them purposefully meant to sway the election. How about we restrict ourselves to the polls which are reported at Real Clear Politics (which is also linked to the Republican party but generally reliable)?  Volunteer Marek  01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In particular this WT&S Consulting firm is funded or is part of "Our Voice Super PAC" [5], which in turn is a pro-Moore Super PAC [6]. It's not a real poll. It's disinformation (which is probably why it came out in Breitbart). Volunteer Marek  01:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The previous piece published on Breitbart on the first two WT&S Consulting polls listed here disclosed that the general polls weren't conducted for any client, though the firm is indeed a Republican one (hence why it was hired by the Moore campaign during the primary – which you'd have known if you'd actually clicked the links instead of simply removing them because of some knee-jerk judgment). WT&S Consulting is a legitimate firm, even if it's a Republican one – and we include polls similarly published to these all the time in other articles – internal polls from Democratic/Republican firms or polls conducted by or for Democratic/Republican firms and candidates; JMC Analytics consults primarily for Republicans, for instance; 0ptimus consulted (iirc) for Rubio and later Kasich during the primaries (and published a pre-New York primary poll on behalf of Kasich); etc. Such polls by nature aren't always going to be published in the best sources. Gravis Marketing is a perfectly legitimate pollster, but they were hired by a splinter pro-Trump organization to poll the race, and I don't see you objecting to those polls – because you don't like the topline, perhaps?
These kind of internal polls or those published by/for/on behalf of Democratic and Republican campaigns are never going to be entirely transparent, and are obviously published to push one side or another, but they've always been included in the past regardless of the source of the poll pretty so much as it appears the firm exists – Normington Petts, PPP, Clarity Campaign Labs, 0ptimus, etc. All we do is just add a "(R-[candidate])" or "(D)" to denote this. Point is – I don't see a compelling reason to believe that this isn't a real poll by a legitimate firm. I'd agree with you on the point that Breitbart isn't a source that should be used for any sort of prose, but these are literally just numbers from private polls from a partisan firm, which don't seriously differ from the other instances I've named. (Only difference is that usually Normington Petts/PPP/etc. publish polling memos, which haven't been included in this case – but nor have those for the NRSC poll.) Mélencron (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding the (R)/(D) to the poll, so readers know where the information is coming from. But, I think we should refrain from including internal polls that can't be connected to a firm that is known to exist or that isn't cited in a credible source (last week, for example, we included some internal polling that was obtained by Politico). I think there's been a steady pace of legitimate polling coming out -- no apparent reason to include suspicious material.CarlsonC (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Although I am a Doug Jones fan, I couldn't agree more with CarlsonC. I would also suggest a legend be included at the top or bottom of the poll sections? Older readers are going to have a harder time understanding what (R) and (D) means. This race has become murky and I think a legend is needed to make it clearer. On a side note, I am not the one who makes the legend. I have already biased myself enough trying to get Doug Jones's picture, with the right permissions, from the campaign. For the record I would say the same thing about Democratic polls. Wikipedia is not one persons bully pulpit. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I till think we should restrict ourselves to polls which are included or discussed in verifiable outlets like Real Clear Politics or 538. I still don't see anything that would indicate that the WT&S poll was anything but a straight up attempt at disinformation - and adding a little "(R)" at the end if doesn't actually solve the problem. Volunteer Marek  21:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Campaign cost[edit]

How many millions were spent on Luther Strange's campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Senator Strange's campaign spent about $5.2 million, Strange for Senate PAC (the one officially affiliated with the campaign) also spent around $5.2 million during the cycle. There were dozens of other, unofficially affiliated PACs that were operating in favor of Strange. Only one of those PACs spent over $1 million. This info is available online with the FEC, if you're curious!CarlsonC (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Third party candidate inclusion in polls[edit]

Should third party candidates be listed separately in "polling," as opposed to being listed as "other?" Polls are fairly close. I think it's good to distinguish these candidates to see what impact they might have on the outcome in a potentially close race between Moore and Jones. (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Busby gets 3% in the latest Emerson poll without forcing all leaners; 5% with leaners. Might be useful to add eventually if he's included in later polls as well. (He wasn't tested in any other polls, though, nor the JMC one with additional candidates.) Mélencron (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Someone changed the start of the article to just say "yuck". Can't seem to identify which edit it was in the page's history to reverse it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, Bcschneider53 just fixed the page and reverted the vandalism.CarlsonC (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of RV/LV separation[edit]

Praline97 has removed the LV/RV separation of polls in the article, arguing that "All RV don't vote in elections, so polls that use them are dropped several months out because they useless on predicting what will happen in the election." However, while the first point is intuitively true, the second is not, and the third is beside the point when it comes to it – the polling sections aren't there for Wikipedia to "predict" the outcome of the election, but simply to inform readers about what polls are saying. The claim that "polls that use them are dropped several months out" (also formulated as "all polls this close to election use LV, RV not relevant", "RV never included this close to election") is also not true, as the Fox News poll clearly makes this distinction. Lastly, dropping the separation deviates from past precedent on Wikipedia: it's been done on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017, New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017, United States Senate election in Arizona, 2016, United States Senate election in Colorado, 2016, United States Senate election in Florida, 2016, United States Senate election in Georgia, 2016, United States Senate election in Nevada, 2016, United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2016, United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2016, United States Senate election in Ohio, 2016, United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016, and United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016, just to name a few more recent examples, from 2017 and competitive Senate elections in 2016. Mélencron (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove RV polls just because they are RV. They still provide a picture of the race and are a datapoint that can be used to show how the race progressed. Additionally, special elections like this are difficult to poll in general. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Roy Moore appears to not be recent.[edit]

The current photo used looks to be from an old recording of Mr. Moore and not an accurate representation of his appearance today. Should the photo used be updated to one taken during the lead up to the special election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C187 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there more recent freely-licensed photo of Moore available? Mélencron (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't help now but if Moore wins we can use his official Senate photo (Jones too for that matter although his image is more current). 331dot (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

SurveyMonkey poll[edit]

The third entry on the bottommost table (the polls for the actual election on Dec. 12) is a SurveyMonkey poll, and the entry says the poll found Jones in the lead 53-45. However, the actual SurveyMonkey poll found results ranging from Jones+9 to Moore+10 depending on how "Likely Voters" are determined.

How should it be represented? It's not accurate to say that the poll found Jones+8, since that was just one of several possibilities they found depending on "Likely Voter" parameters. Is there a way to show a range of poll results in the table? Or should the entry just be deleted, since the pollsters themselves said they couldn't come up with clear enough results for a prediction/margin?

The link: . There's a brief summary of the results on the green table labeled "Who's Really Ahead?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's my line of thought: I opted for the first RV topline they gave because it's the only one for which a MoE is explicitly given and also because it's not LV-weighted in any way, so I don't have to choose all eight. I think it's an omission not to list the poll at all but also a bit ridiculous to list every single one in the table. Mélencron (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mac Watson party change[edit]

The Wikipedia article says that Mac Watson, write-in candidate, is a Republican, but in an interview, he says that he is not a Republican any longer. Can this be changed, please?

The link to the interview: — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaint250 (talkcontribs) 01:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No evidence of Cassidy's endorsement, except his self-publish source[edit]

Bill Cassidy claims he endorsed Roy Moore before discovering sexual scandals, but no evidence of Cassidy's endorsement, it seemed to be self- published sources. --Lamalle (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bill Cassidy's quotes aren't reliable sources, POV. Wikipedia needs third-persons' quotes for Cassidy's endorsement before discovering sexual scandals.--Lamalle (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Because Roy Moore rejected Graham-Cassidy bill (to replace obamacare without full repeal), so Cassidy's comments about sexual scandals looks like his bias or harrassment against Moore's conservative ideology, and Cassidy hopes another Alabama Senator who will support Graham-Cassidy bill.−−Lamalle (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jones victory[edit]

While, per policy, it may technically be premature to call the race, there's no point trying to keep it off this page at this point. I support including it unless there's a change in the preliminary results. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Length of term[edit]

The first sentence of the article says that the senate term up for election ends on January 3, 2021. There is no citation for this. To the contrary, the BBC reports that "The Senate seat will come up for re-election in November 2018." [1] Can we get an authoritative source for the length of the term? (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC updated their article and it now reads "The Senate seat will come up for re-election in November 2020." DJMcNiff (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017 (typo: Alabama not Alabma)[edit]

There's a typo in: "All of Alabma's 67 counties have to certify their election results to the Alabama Secretary of State"

It should read 'Alabama' not 'Alabma'. Dliroberts (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Done User:Tages72 corrected the spelling. Thanks!  shivam (t) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017[edit]

Add Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin under the endorsements of Doug Jones. ObamaRama (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard L. Hasen's opinion on the recount[edit]


@Eggishorn: Hello. Why are you calling a notable expert's opinion which was reposted by two notable media outlets unnecessary? --Синкретик (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Синкретик:, I can call anyone I want "unnecessary" if they are only producing an opinion. No matter what their expertise, there is no value to their views per WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTNEWS unless and until there is something factual to report about the possibility of recounts. As of right now, all we know is that there isn't a small enough margin for an automatic recount and any opinions about whether there should be recounts are not meaningful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. --Синкретик (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for asking your question here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Change in vote percentage[edit]

Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in the 2014 election. Is the column detailing the change in vote percentage really needed for the table at the bottom? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 23:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the table is kind of confusing. Plus, there isn't a column like that on the 2014 article. I think it should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with removing the column. Running opposed and against a candidate of the other party are not comparable enough to produce a meaningful swing calculation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Vote percentage incorrect[edit]

Jones recieved 49.9% of the vote, not 50.00% (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

49.97%, which rounds to 50.0%. Look at the certified results. MB298 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't round it up. You give the official results as is. The certified results are 49.97%. Sounds like this is a Democrat-controlled page trying to make Jones look better. Even the NYT gives these results:
No, it's standard procedure. Look at literally any other election page on Wikipedia. Look at 2016 Presidential results, 2012, 2008, 2004..... MB298 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Um no 2016 is still listed as 48.2-46.1%. Nothing is rounded up.,_2016 Bjoh249 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the percentages round to within 1/10 percentage point. Example is 59.2% instead of 59.22% or say 10.7% instead of 10.66%. It keeps it cleaner. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Jones got 49.97% which rounds up to 50.0% and Moore got 48.34% which rounds down to 48.3%. MB298 (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
WRONG! You don't round up, you give the correct percentages, but I know you Democrats like to hijack these pages and make things look like things they are not.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:886D:B378:9571:8FCC (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a Democrat, and second of all, this is what happens in every election page. If Moore got 49.97% and Jones got 48.34% we would do it the exact same. Take United States Senate election in Texas, 2014 for example: John Cornyn got 61.55% but we rounded it up to 61.6%. MB298 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
673,896/(673,896+651,972+22,852) = 49.965%, which rounds up to 50.0%. Mélencron (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The LEAD is too long and includes information not found elsewhere in the article (does not summarize)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Some statements lack supporting citations (e.g. "The Republican primary attracted national attention, especially following Trump's endorsement of incumbent Senator Luther Strange")
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Given other issues in the article I did not do research to see if this article satisfies this criteria as compared to other GA/FA.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The Moore picture is really low quality. Given his profile I would be surprised if a better picture isn't available.
  7. Overall:
    Lack of response to confirmation of interest means that detailed comments were not given.


Can Nick2crosby or other article editor confirm that they are interested in going through the GA review process for this article? I have never done a GA review of an article under WP:ACDS so I'm not sure how they will play out in this review but am willing to do this review if there's an interested editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)