Jump to content

Talk:2014 United States Senate election in Maine

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

Bennett as a write-in

[edit]

The Kennebec Journal has reported that Erick Bennett is facing Sen. Collins as a write-in candidate, and does not mention an independent candidacy(likely due to his independent candidacy being illegal). I have changed this article to indicate that, but I'm not sure if that means the reference to his independent run should be removed or how it should be changed. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Official_campaign_site_links_in_election_articles Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should election articles have links to the campaign websites of the candidates involved? 331dot (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

As I pointed out, the individuals' campaign websites are redundant (in that this article links to each notable individual's article which contain the external links) and off topic (in that this article is about the election, not the individuals' campaigns), so don't belong per WP:EL (ELNO #1,5,13, possibly 19) and WP:NOT (WP:SOAP & WP:NOTLINK).

Note that even on their own articles, the campaign website links are highly questionable for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those out, I hope you are prepared to ask for them to be removed across Wikipedia through a RfC, as the vast majority of pages have them, and the ones that don't AFAIK you removed them from. Even pages for other countries' elections (see the last UK election)] have such links. Yes, other stuff exists, but I think all articles about a like subject (such as US Senate elections) should be similar in format and have similar information.
I'm frankly amazed that we have someone claiming campaign websites are irrelevant to an election, if they were, campaigns would not invest in them; Campaign websites are not irrelevant to the election, they are the basis of the election. Without campaigns you have no election. Wikipedia is here to inform readers, and readers who come here to learn about the election can find a link to the campaign websites to learn more and get firsthand information. What is the benefit of not having this information? 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how such links are soapboxing, and the first line of WP:NOTLINK states "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". It is certainly relevant and informative. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support everything that 331dot has said above. Campaign websites are very important for an article about an election. In no way are these external links off-topic.--TM 19:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we're ignoring WP:EL completely? Why?
The campaign sites are only important in that they promote their campaigns, hence WP:SOAP.
The links are being added to provide access to the sites regardless of content. That's providing a directory service rather than encyclopedic content, hence WP:NOTLINK.
(And lets avoid misrepresentations like, "claiming campaign websites are irrelevant to an election". No one is making such a claim.) --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links are not promotional as they do not advocate for or against a candidate(i.e. "vote for Susan Collins, here's her site"). The links are for accessing the sites because of their content, not regardless of it. It is beneficial to readers interested in this election to have easy links to find out more information about the candidates. You can cite an alphabet soup of policies but you still haven't said what the benefit of not having this information is. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain that if you want to seek such a large change to Wikipedia, that you submit a RfC as this issue affects more than just this page. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the content of the sites promotes the campaign by definition.
"links are for accessing the sites" Exactly. We're providing a directory service. We shouldn't be.
"...because of their content" I see no evidence of that. We're simply adding links to campaign sites.
I think we should simply follow WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links, however, are not promotional in and of themselves and are not given in a promotional context.
The links are not provided as a "directory"(a large number of links about a subject) but to enhance the informative value of the article. WP:EL also says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic", which these clearly are. It also states that the follwing is acceptable: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons"; the links on their campaigns are relevant to better understanding the election. Removing them would do a great disservice to readers. You also still have not stated what the benefit is to not having the information. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is we follow our relevant policies and guidelines in providing information of an encyclopedic nature rather than promoting the campaigns themselves by providing the links in multiple articles.
The links are not "further research that is accurate and on topic". As I already said the very opposite about their relevance to the topic of this article and why, you'll have to explain further.
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" The material is in no way neutral. Claiming it is accurate is more than a stretch. These are campaign websites we're talking about, not research, not statistics, not independently written information of any kind whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not promotional unless done in a manner in which to advocate a position, which is not being done. No one is promoting particular candidates or voting in a certain manner. It does not promote a campaign to provide a link to interested readers; we want people to read the articles and use them as a resource. By your reasoning, there should be no external links of any kind in any article, as all links are "promotional" in your eyes. Campaign websites are an essential and integral part of elections and help readers; not including them is a great disservice. Obviously this is a fundamental disagreement between us and neither one of us will convince the other, so I await comment by others. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content and purpose of the websites are to promote the individuals, correct? --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. We are not advocating that people vote for the candidates. What is relevant here is the intention of posting the link(to be informative), not the content of the website. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the content is relevant. If it is not, then we're adding the links to be a directory. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The links are not for directory purposes, nor are they for promotional purposes. They are for informative purposes. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong: What you're saying is that we simply list each of the individuals' campaign websites. The content on these sites doesn't matter. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to answer that question for you; you clearly have an answer in mind; and I've stated my position quite clearly and see no need to do so again. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then it's a matter of when, if ever, do we ignore the contents of external links. As far as I understand NOT and EL, we don't ignore the contents of external links ever. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content is not being ignored. The pages are about the candidates of the election. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we'd exclude a candidate's website if it wasn't about the candidate specifically? --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting links to the official campaign website of the candidates of the relevant election; not third-party sites supporting or opposing candidates, or sites by their political party. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So as long as the websites meet that criteria, their content is irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a point to make, please do so. I've stated the relevance of the links and I don't need to state it again. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to clarify your perspective. Currently, the only allowed external links that are remotely similar to what you are proposing are WP:ELOFFICIAL links, but even with those the content still matters. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, but if a candidate's campaign site didn't have content relevant to the election(such as personal information, resume, political positions), it isn't really a campaign site and shouldn't be here- but I know of no official campaign websites that aren't actually campaign websites. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm identifying the closest relevant policy/guideline, ELOFFICIAL, to what's being proposed, and pointing out ELOFFICIAL does not ignore the content of linked websites. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming via the RfC alerts for Elections & referedums, I would say that the external links should be included. They are entirely relevant to the election. Re Ronz's comment re points 1, 5, 13 and 19 of WP:ELNO being relevant, I wholly disagree. One-by-one; #1 – these sites will provide more information that the article will, as not all campaign pledges by candidates can reasonably be included in the article; #5 – the sites are not commercial (i.e. exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising); #13 – the sites are directly related to the article (they're campaign websites for the election!) and #19 – the websites aren't mentioned in the article. I also find little to back up the SOAP and NOTLINK arguments; this is not promotional, as it's directly related to the subject (would we not include a link to McDonald's official website on their article?). This is also very unlikely to turn into some kind of directory, unless there are tens of candidates. Number 57 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sites exist to promote the individuals. That's promotional.
The sites are not about the United States Senate election in Main, 2014. The sites are the individuals' campaign sites. If there were an article about say Susan Collins' 2014 Senate campaign, then that article would be directly related and the link would meet the first criteria of ELOFFICIAL.
This page isn't being used as a directory, but the rationale for including the links is for directory purposes. The links already exists on the notable individuals' pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Yes, they are promotional, but the guideline specifically defines it as being advertising with the intention of selling – this is not the case here, and (b) the sites are directly related to the article because they are campaign sites for the election in question. I also disagree with your last assertion - I don't believe the rationale is for directory purposes - I think it's just reasonable that an election article would link to the respective campaigns. Number 57 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's advertising then. WP:SOAP is not restricted to just the intention of selling, nor is ELNO meant to be limited to promotion only with the intention of selling.
They are individuals' campaign sites, not websites about the overall campaign in general.
They are being added as a directory of websites to people in the campaign without regard to content. If I'm wrong, then lets clarify what content would disqualify them from being included. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misusing SOAP - it's about content, not about the external links. The links here are not being used promotionally (the only way in which I would consider this possible would be if only one candidate's site was linked), they are being used to point readers to the relative campaign sites. But anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and let the closer determine who has made the stronger case. Number 57 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of a few related discussions at ELN. Anyone know of other discussions, maybe via WikiProjects like WP:PLT? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support posting third-party sites about or against candidates, as your latter discussion was about. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Trying to play devil's advocate: The only interesting thing I see in this specific case of this article is that Erick Bennett doesn't have his own article so his campaign website isn't included elsewhere on Wikipedia as are those of the two main candidates. Perhaps we provide a directory of all the candidates' campaign sites on this article because of this? --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fairness all known campaign sites of relevant candidates should be included, otherwise it appears one is being favored over the other. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one person advocating for removal of the links, while the other contributors here want them to remain, and an IP user tried to add them today. I'm admittedly biased, but it doesn't yet seem to be a close call that they should be restored. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote.
As I've summarized, the rationale so far offered to include the links appears to be that editors feel that they should be treated similarly to ELOFFICIAL links, but without regard for content. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say otherwise- only that you are the only one stating your view. Nor is content being disregarded. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Content is disregarded in that it doesn't seem to matter what's in the website as long as it fits the official campaign website criteria being proposed. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how you are getting that. Of course the content matters; if the website isn't an official campaign site, or it somehow has content not related to the election whatsoever,(not sure how that's possible, but you seem to think so) it shouldn't be here. It isn't really that complicated. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be clearer: We're talking about official campaign websites. Given such a website, the content doesn't appear to matter to anyone arguing for inclusion of links to these websites. The argument for inclusion is simply that they are official campaign websites. --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't; that's an oversimplification. The argument is that it provides information to the reader to help them learn more about the subject. You say "it doesn't seem to matter what's in the website"; can you provide an example of an official campaign site that does not have content about the campaign whatsoever? 331dot (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if there were such a case, then we'd exclude it? --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; I thought that self-evident. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we should follow WP:EL for determining what links do and do not belong, rather than creating an exception that has already been rejected at WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the discussion where this was "rejected"? Consensus can change as well and right now I'm not seeing a consensus to keep these removed, biased as I am. I am in agreement with Number 57's argument above and believe that such links are fully in line with guidelines. No "exception" is being asked for. The links are fully relevant and beneficial to election articles. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the links are both relevant and important to these articles. See External links in Good Article United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, including the discussion on the Talk page. There has been and remains a general consensus on what should be included in External links for such articles - except for Ronz and his friends, who believe they should be the thought police. The key question is: "If I were interested in learning about this topic, what would be useful?" Clearly, any researcher would be interested in these links. Ronz has been on a non-stop crusade for six months, insisting the Guidelines mean whatever he would like them to mean, regardless of their clear intent. He refuses to accept any points other than his own. If he gets his small group to post in support, he counts heads and claims consensus. If not, he claims consensus is not a vote. This game-playing is not how Wikipedia is intended to operate. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your battleground attitude is disruptive. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 331dot: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14#.22is_standard_on_all_elections_pages.22 mentioned above.

The RfC has been open for a while now. Shall we wait for others? Maybe close and take it up at ELN? --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling that discussion a "rejection" is a stretch at best. Three people contributed to the discussion, one of which (you) simply stated agreement with the original poster, and a second person stated a slightly more complicated opinion. No indication was made that other opinions were being solicited(as I did here).
I'm content to leave this open for more time, others may still wish to contribute. I have already stated my opinion of this discussion as it stands now. If you wish to take additional action, I can only say that you must do what you feel is needed, as I cannot prevent it. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow your lede with the RfC.
Consensus isn't a vote. ELN is the most appropriate forum for such discussion, so further soliciting would be inappropriate. However, I do think more detailed discussion would help clarify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is vote counting, but can you honestly state that there is a consensus on this page to keep the links removed? Is there a tag that can be put on the article itself to indicate that there is a discussion here? 331dot (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no article tags that I'm aware of indicate the discussion here.
WP:PLT might be helpful. I don't recall ever searching their discussion archives, much less starting a discussion there. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WT:PLT after some quick searches. Still, it would be an appropriate location to bring up this and related discussions. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of disclosure, I have posted about this discussion on the talk page of WP:PLT. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading: See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Politicians, prematurely closed on July 5 by Binksternet, less than an hour after the last comment. Note the conflict with the consensus there (include all such information in the election articles) with what Ronz is claiming here. Also see the more general discussions at Wikipedia talk:External links, including 2 No longer suggesting DMOZ, 3 Links to voting records, and 3.1 Let's plan a bigger discussion. Those discussions reveal their goal to make Wikipedia political articles as information-free as possible. Ronz even threatened me with being blocked, and DMOZ with being blacklisted and therefore "penalized" by all the search engines, if I didn't leave him alone to continue his "cleansing" of these articles. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the Wikistalking. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-defense on my part, Ronz. Try looking in the mirror. Here's one of many, many examples. Your very first edit to Democratic Party of Illinois, so it's unlikely you had it on your Watch list, less than 24 hours after I added an excellent link to many excellent sources, quite useful for our readers. Which is apparently the reason you deleted it. Democracy depends on a well-informed electorate, the complete opposite of what you and your friends are working towards:

  • (cur | prev) 16:58, 12 July 2014 Ronz (talk | contribs) . . (5,160 bytes) (-397) . . (→External links: quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 16:57, 12 July 2014 Ronz (talk | contribs) m . . (5,557 bytes) (-104) . . (Reverted edits by 71.23.178.214 (talk) to last version by Namiba) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 18:57, 11 July 2014 71.23.178.214 (talk) . . (5,661 bytes) (+104) . . (→External links) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.178.214 (talk)
Please take your concerns to a proper venue. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm exactly where I belong, Ronz. Note this. I'm sorry you feel entitled to not only tell me what not to do, but also where to go. Have a nice day, preferably doing something positive rather than harrassing and bullying other people. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've policies and guidelines here. If you choose to ignore them you'll repeatedly find yourself being directed to follow them, which is what has been done in your case. Taking them as personal offenses demonstrates you are simply unwilling to work with others. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off this question really is to broad. I find it very unlikely that the community as a whole would see this RFC to respond. A positive consensus could effect a large number of articles. There are many elections. Not just in Maine. Not just in the United States. After that wp:soapbox seems to apply. Beyond that these links are very likely temporary. Why stick up link that very likely won't be there in a year or a link that likely contain a different subject matter in a year.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is beneficial to readers of the article, as this article cannot contain all information that appears on official candidate sites. As for duration, there is no reason links can't be removed at the conclusion of the election- but as candidates announce years in advance, it is beneficial for that amount of time. As discussed above, it is not soapboxing as candidates are not being endorsed or promoted. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be beneficial to voters but I don't see it as beneficial to readers. It may be discussed above that this is not soapboxing, but I disagree. It may be beneficial for that amount of time? Wikipedia sounds like a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. With all of that and a RFC advertised in a rather obscure wikipedia page that could effect the entire English wikipedia I have to say no.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should readers do if they are interested in learning more about the campaigns of the persons in the election but there are no easy links to their official sites? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but that doesn't preclude having current information and removing it when it is out of date, otherwise articles about events would not be created until they were concluded(Imagine not having an article about MH17 until after it was fully investigated). I don't understand the opposition to restricting and not having this beneficial information; not having it does a great disservice to readers- not just voters in the election area, but all interested readers who might not have the knowledge of the election- who want to learn more. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would do if they if there no easy links and they wanted to know more? Well they could use google, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, or any of the other search engines. In addition to the party line on the campaign page they could be linked to other information that could prove invaluable to them. That's abit of a false dilemma and bogus comparison. To create a article for a downed airline or to post a politicians website on an already created article aren't even remotely related. The reliable sourced and known information for the plane crash.. No I'm not going to touch that. The link stands only to promote a candidate. You might be aiming to list all of the candidates equally but they only brings other questions, such as undue weight.Some one mentioned WP:ELOFFICIAL above but I couldn't help but notice WP:ELMINOFFICIAL under it. It mentions the possibility of external links giving undue weight. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing. Seems interesting. There is even a bit there about linked websites should be consistent. Beyond that there's that whole thing about this RFC being posted in an obscure article and it presenting the possibility of effecting the English wikipedia as a whole in numerous articles without taking much effort to seek input from the wikipedia community at large. Though it would be interesting to see Putin's campaign website at the bottom of the article about the next Russian Presidential election.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that (re search engines) about any external link on Wikipedia. Are you proposing abolishing all external links?
No candidates are being promoted (Vote for Susan Collins, here's her site), nor is marketing being facilitated, as the links are presented neutrally and fairly.
As for the discussion itself, I can only post this discussion in the places I am aware of as I am not familiar with the entirety of Wikipedia. Since the links had been present for some time, I think the onus should be on those who want it removed to start the discussion, but I did so despite that. If you know of a better place for me to bring this up, feel free to mention it(or just go ahead and start it yourself if you wish). 331dot (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you proposing abolishing all external links?" You're missing the points of our policies and guidelines regarding external links. We want to minimize external links, and focus both our readers and editors on the content we provide. Further, external links are easily misused for non-encyclopedic purposes, hence WP:RSPAM and WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point; as I have said I believe this idea is fully in line with policies, which you are entitled to disagree with. My point was that once you say a link is rendered unnecessary by Google, you can say that about any link here, which means that all external links should be removed. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You opened an RFC. The bot posted it on my page. I came here and answered. No I don't think all links should be removed. I haven't even suggested it. I was talking about the links in question here. I can't see the point in your red herring argument. And since this has been moved to the EL noticeboard this RFC should be closed Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Maine Senatorial Election Results by County, 2014.svg

[edit]

I am using this image because it provides gradients for vote levels, and because it is easier on the eyes than File:08MESenateCounties.PNG. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage who voted should *always* be included in vote tallies

[edit]

I suggest a "Turnout" column, with values in percent. Encyclopedant (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_United_States_Senate_election_in_Maine&oldid=1229216907"