Talk:2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts

2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 11, 2014. (Reviewed version).

2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 22, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts / Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) event(s). Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Polling order

Question: Should the polling list in chronological order? Please add your opinion to reach consensus. —GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reverse order makes no sense. There's no purpose in seeing it in reverse order when other information on this page is in forward order. Just because it's wrong on other pages doesn't mean it should be wrong here.—GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong" is your personal opinion, let's keep that clear first off. Secondly, the consensus on other pages is for reverse chronological order, so let's not automatically assume that whatever consensus is decided on here automatically applies to the other pages. I prefer reverse chronological order. I know that different people have different views, but to me the current political situation is the most important and deserves a more prominent position in the ordering. Maybe polls from a year ago can be useful if you want to track how you the race is progressing, but that can be seen just as easily using reverse chronological order. Rxguy (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely makes sense to have the most recent poll at the top of the list. It's how every polling website on the internet does it. Doing it differently here is stubborn to the point of being obtuse. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Moreover, this isn't just how every list of polls on every website (including wikipedia) does things. This is generally how all lists of time-sensitive stories/reports/polls/news items are presented everywhere. johnpseudo 21:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will this remain "time sensitive" next year, after the election is over?—GoldRingChip 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "time-sensitive", I mean that old polls quickly lose their relevance once a new poll is published. So yes, a year from now the polls immediately before the election will be more relevant than the polls several months before. In either case, the ability to look at this historic record remains, and like I said- readers expect polls to be arranged in this order. Flipping things around has no utility. johnpseudo 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles, I've noticed other things in reverse chronological order, too. E.g.: California's 15th congressional district#Voting. Can we devise a standard?—GoldRingChip 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively. No consensus is attainable. Professional pollsters list in reverse because the try to gain media attention, with the newest at the top. This is an encyclopedia, not newsmedia, so the standard is chronological. See quasi-edit-war at

Talk:New York's 26th congressional district special election, 2011, sections "Polling in reverse order - misleading" and "Polling again". Nevertheless, the pollsters don't budge, and neither should the encyclopedians... Kraxler (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I don't think it's appropriate to change the order of the polls here from how every other article (20+ articles in the 2012 Senate category alone) does polling order. If you want to change the way we do things, you should try to get some broader consensus. Perhaps take it to the Politics WikiProject page or leave notes linking back here on some of the other more heavily-trafficked articles. johnpseudo 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we should seek a broader consensus at a better-trafficked page, such as a Wikiproject page. Until then, however, this page remains in correct chronological order.—GoldRingChip 15:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpseudo, you do your reverse order at your polling sites or your campaign headquarters, not at Wikipedia. Chronological order for all historic events is total consensus here, and written into a guideline. Why should pollsters get an exception? Wikipedia does not just copy from other sources, encyclopedians re-write text and re-arrange tables to present a matter in an understandable way. Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I suppose you're going to change every other election article on wikipedia? (BTW, you need to look up what consensus means if you think 2 vs 1 = consensus) johnpseudo 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpseudo, First: it's not a question of 2 to 1 here, it's a question of Wikipedia vs. outside usage, see above. Outside Wikipedia you can write up the polls in Chinese characters if you like. And second, please do not believe that I've never heard a fallacious argument before. I (or GoldRingChip or whoever) will change other articles as they get aware of them, or as they find the time to do so. Imagine, you get a speeding ticket, and you ask the policemen if he will fine every speeder at all times, or if some might get away with it. So, if not (obviously he can't, not being ubiquitous), why shouldn't he let you go too? Think about it. (Note: This was a metaphor). Kraxler (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this arguments obviously needs more input from other editors. Based on the fact that nearly every election article outside of this one uses reverse chronological order, I feel pretty comfortable that the overall consensus is on my side. This isn't a list of historic events like the articles you seem to be familiar with. This is a situation where a poll closer to the date of an election is just more important than a poll taken months prior. A poll taken a year before is basically just speculation. Often the main candidates haven't even entered the race, or some major event has yet to occur that will make the poll irrelevant. If an article is about the election itself, the article should prioritize information that is still relevant to that election rather than telling the story of how the race has developed over time. For example, if you opened an article about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, you wouldn't expect to find 3 pages of biographical information about all the people in Lincoln's political career who unsuccessfully plotted to kill him before hearing about how the Booth actually did the deed. The most relevant information about an election is who wins or is predicted to win, not who was first expected to win when someone first decided to poll the race. johnpseudo 18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a list of historic events like the articles I seem to be familiar with. I'd be happy to engage in a further discussion seeking consensus on a website with a broader readership, just as you suggest. —GoldRingChip 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with johnpseudo. I can't even find one example of people listing polls in chronological order. It doesn't happen. This has broad consensus across all of Wikipedia and the rest of the web. It seems as though you are left totally without a valid argument. Respectfully, Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk page for my opinion on this matter, and I would agree with those supporting listing polling data in reverse chronological order. While an election's final outcome is the only poll that truly matters in the end, the most recent polling data have more importance during the course of a campaign than figures from weeks and months prior. While what Kraxler mentioned about professional pollsters listing polls in reverse chronological order to get media attention is true, I would think that a lot of people come to Wikipedia for the latest, most up-to-date information as well. In my work on the

2012

Connecticut U.S. Senate articles, reverse chronological order has been the standard used.

While my support today goes to using reverse chronological order, I do wonder if perhaps

sortable tables might be something worth exploring in the future. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

GoldRingChip, do you have any more thoughts? It'll be hard to make much more progress if you don't add to the conversation. If you have the time to revert changes, you have the time to talk. So far I've seen very little substantive discussion from you or Kraxler- you both seem focused more on the "we're different from pollsters" angle, rather than talking about why exactly chronological order is appropriate in this case. johnpseudo 12:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's build a consensus on a website with a broader readership, just as you suggest.—GoldRingChip 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already left notices on the 2012 US Senate elections article talk page and the Elections wikiproject. That's where Light-jet pilot and Sgt. R.K. Blue came from. I thought we could just bring more editors here rather than actually restarting the conversation elsewhere. johnpseudo 15:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you restart the conversation there freshly. Just propose it without all the huff-and-puff dialog we've had here. Ask people to support or oppose your proposal. Cross post it with Project Congress, Project U.S.,

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Direct them all to the elections wikiproject. In fact, make a new subpage dedicated just to polling and ask for a consensus.—GoldRingChip 18:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, since the rest of wikipolling is already in reverse-chronological order, and this is the only example of chronological order, the "proposal" would be yours to make. Light-jet pilot (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this old chestnut again. The fact is, almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top. It's only in the odd page, like this one, that some editors go against the consensus and put the most recent polls at the bottom. To be honest, it's not really something worth arguing and debating over. 99% of pages do it one way, which is easier to read and also to update and there's the 1% of pages that don't. If editors want to make a proposal, they are welcome to but I just don't see the point. Tiller54 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is irrelevant, historic events are told in chronological order. We (encyclopedians) don't start a bio with the most important things in a person's life, and then jump around according to decreasing importance, and possibly causing edit-wars because editors haggle about what is more or less important, we use a chronological sequence, beginning with the subject's birth, and ending with the subject's death. It sounds reasonable to me.

The problem here is that no ordinary editor here adds polls, it's done only by real-life pollsters who do not care for encyclopedic content, but abuse Wikipedia as a campaign platform. About the alleged quasi-"consensus", there is the fallacious argument agian. <Metaphor>We don't allow rapists to use guns to threaten their victims because most rapists threaten their victims with guns, or do we?</Metaphor> Polls are non-events, they are fabricated misinformation, as the totally different actual election results show many times. Nevertheless, the polls were made and published, so they might as well be added here, if the chronological sequence of events could be maintained. Kraxler (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem here is that no ordinary editor here adds polls, it's done only by real-life pollsters who do not care for encyclopedic content, but abuse Wikipedia as a campaign platform". 1. I'm not a "real-life pollster". 2. I'm not here to abuse Wikipedia, I'm here to contribute just like most editors are. Thanks for assuming good faith, btw. 3. I don't work for any campaign or have a platform to promote. You clearly have no interest in sensible discussion of this issue, you're just pursuing some ridiculous vendetta against me and other editors who add polling data. Tiller54 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Tiller54! Nothing but the truth! >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody else does it" is not consensus. "Everybody, once informed and discussed, agrees" is. For the third time, I ask you to post a discussion at a more broadly-read place. I've allowed you to phrase it yourself, thereby letting you phrase the question in your own way. I've advised you on where to cross-post it. I think this is a very emotional issue for you (out-of-chronological-order) editors, so I've let you control the debate. But until you give me either a logical reason or a consensus reason, I can't learn why we should post a chronological list in reverse chronological order.—GoldRingChip 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply demanding that other editors follow your orders (creating a new venue for discussion when this one is perfectly suitable) is not a productive way to add to the discussion. I've put notices on the relevant article talk pages to direct whoever is interested to add to this discussion. Three editors have obviously taken me up on that. They've all supported my position. It's up to you to move this argument forward in any method you feel to be appropriate. If you refuse to add any substantive to the discussion, and Kraxler continues to repeat his screed against "pollsters abusing Wikipedia", I will suggest that we start the path down Wikipedia's official dispute resolution process. johnpseudo 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I let you make the argument any way, any where, any how. And you're still not satisfied?—GoldRingChip 23:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is for us to have a discussion. You seem to be refusing to have one here. And you seem unwilling to start a new discussion elsewhere. johnpseudo 16:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At

New York's 26th congressional district special election, 2011, 6 editors added polls in chronological order, and were reversed every time by self-ordained patrolman Tiller54, causing an edit-war. So much for "everybody else does". Apparently everybody else does not, but gets tired of being reversed by a small abusing minority. Be my guest, johnpseudo, hope to see you soon before the arbitration committee. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Where are these editors? I'd love to have them (or anyone else) come here to join in the discussion. Maybe I wasn't broad enough in my invitation to have other editors come here to give their input. I'll go ahead and spread the word, since we have a general dearth of substantive conversation coming from you or GoldRingChip. I really don't want to waste the time of the mediators/arbitrators, but nobody seems to be adding anything new. johnpseudo 16:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just responding from the post left @ WPUS. Without reading the long string above, why can't we just make the table sortable? Then the reader could sort it how they want rather than how we think it should be built?

talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ideally, the polling results should be discussed in prose text. In an encyclopedia, data tables supplement and support prose; they don't substitute for prose. The prose discussion would normally be in forward chronological order, which means that the supporting table(s) should also use forward chronological order. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True thats a good point. In fact if an article goes to FA or FL they require that the information be presented in chronological order.

talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm primarily just hoping that whatever we decide here can help guide a standard that can be applied to all of the hundreds of election articles with poll lists. This is the only one I'm aware of that uses chronological order. johnpseudo 19:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should all use Chron order IMO, since that is what would be required if they got to featured.

talk) 19:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Being a featured article requires chronological order? That surprises me. Can you confirm (cite) that?—GoldRingChip 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@johnpseudo; This is the only one I'm aware of that uses chronological order. - Quite surprising, since I mentioned the NY26 special election twice already. FYI, that uses chronological order too. I guess you ignored it on purpose. See you at arbitration... Kraxler (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler, if you're going to take it to arbitration, than actually take it to arbitration. If you're NOT going to...don't say it. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit being a drama queen, Kraxler. It slipped my mind. And there's not much difference between one or two articles in the context of the hundreds in reverse-chronological order. johnpseudo 11:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@johnpseudo Please observe

WP:POINT. (I quote: "Do not disrupt Wikipedia, just to make a point!") Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You know, we actually benefit from dropping this argument. You will "win" your little vendetta, and 98% of Wikipolling will still be as we like it. And as for

WP:CIVIL, you are breaking it more than he is. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

As little as chronological order makes sense to me in this context, leaving this article in a different order than (nearly) every other article makes even less sense. I want to resolve this, preferably without needing to involve anyone who hasn't volunteered their opinion. Going through the official conflict resolution process would show a failure on our part to work this out. I want to work this out, and I want all of the articles to be consistent. I'm in the process of trying to convert the tables into sortable tables (although that's going to be extremely time-consuming), and I've found one wikipedia guideline that may be relevant here:

Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Chronological_ordering

Yes. The narrative of most WP election articles and politicians' blps follows a chronological order in general. Most non-specialist readers and new editors would reasonably expect the polling section to follow the same pattern as the rest of the article of which it is a part. The claims that "almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top" and "the problem here is that no ordinary editor here adds polls, it's done only by real-life pollsters" are simply wrong — depending on how "features" is defined (does it mean any articles that include several polls conducted at different time points?). It may be that the majority of elections articles that include poll data do follow reverse chronological order (I do not know), but if so, there are still a significant minority of articles describing high-profile candidates and races that do not. In fact, had I not seen the notice of this debate on one of the elections & referenda projects pages, I would not have realized that this is even an issue of concern for some editors. A few pages I have recently read or edited that have not been following a strict reverse chronological order in the polls section include

As for the suggestion that polls be listed chronologically until the conclusion of the election, then switched to reverse-chronological thereafter, this could work out, but would require a bit of extra work. It would also be likely to result in a number of lower-profile articles tending to be indefinitely left out of compliance with the formal standard. (Could a script that would switch the data be written to help out?) A related but broader question is Should the polls sections of all WP articles on politicians (not just elections articles) be written in reverse-chronological order? It would be somewhat confusing to adopt a standard that applied only to elections articles, since polls sections are not limited to elections articles. Dezastru (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should clarify, for anyone to whom it isn't abundantly obvious, that my thoughts above are on what a general policy should be across wikipedia rather than for this article per se. Dezastru (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable for such current events ("live") articles to list the latest poll first, and to list all in reverse order if you wish. 'Afterward, such as coverage of 2008 polls today or December 2008, any such list should be forward chronological. -P64 [now outdent]

Five cents on chronological list order

Here are my five cents. The latter three provide for illustration three articles where I have worked heavily.

1. Where ordering by chronology is reasonable, rather than by name or another alternative, lists should use forward chronological order. Some WP guideline or policy prescribes this. Some suggests or permits reverse order for lists that grow frequently because they follow frequent current events. Consider your WP:WATCHLIST, but this is permitted or suggested for some list articles. (This month I have read it but now don't find it quickly. I might later provide links and delete this note.)
2. So the
   WP:standalone
   list, where there would be a case for showing the recent listings on the first screen for many visitors.
3. I support the organization of Bermuda Bowl which covers a now-biennial competition. The historical record is chronological but section "Latest rendition" precedes all of the history. Internally, that section too is mainly chronological but coverage of the outcome and "Final" match is first. For most other competitions in the same family, there is no full "Latest rendition". Brief coverage of the latest and next renditions still precedes the generally chronological narrative because it appears in the last lines of the lead (as here where there is a full Latest rendition).
4. Many articles on annual literary awards list winners (Kate Greenaway Medal) or winners and finalists (Caldecott Medal) in reverse chronological award (violating policy or guideline, iiuc). I converted the former plain list to a wikitable last month, improving the display in some ways but retaining reverse order. I made the table sortable, and its first column gives the dates in sortable fashion (despite some markup), so that many readers can readily undo the reverse order. The subsequent list of finalists is backward and fixed, however. (I added 2012 to the top of that list. If I were British, maybe I would have made that "Current rendition" following the lead. I did put brief coverage of the current rendition at the end of the lead.)
   1. The equivalent U.S. Caldecott Medal presents winners and runners up in chronological order, intermingled in one sortable table. The chronological order can be reversed, but that complicates the intermingling. Editors have used a distinct color background for the annual winner in order to help interpret the table when sorted or re-sorted by any of its first three columns.

• For U.S. National Book Award award categories, one of our four lists of winners and finalists displays 2011 to 1984 backward, 1964 to 1983 forward, and 1963 to 1950 backward. I wrote the very long middle section in forward order because I expect the other parts to be re-ordered someday. And because National Book Award for Nonfiction, the case in point, thereby reflects our technically simple coverage of the other three award categories: two backward and one forward!

The last doesn't add anything new, so please consider 4.1 one of my five cents. --P64 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from WikiProject U.S. Congress; perhaps a compromise? 'Most recent polls' at top and 'Other polls' chronological thereafter? Barring a compromise I'll note Wikipedia has made exceptions for other 'industry-wide standards' (see WikiProject Birds, naming), and note we a) provide introduction summaries, normally listing current position without (German language waiting 100 words for the verb). b) Most recent polls could easily be a separate section, available from the Contents table, whether it's above or below. Dru of Id (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either compromise sounds good. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of listing the endorsements? The Republicans are going to endorse the Republican and likewise the Democrats. Hardly worthy of noting in an encyclopedia.—GoldRingChip 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except when Democrats endorse Brown.

Hot Stop 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

How dare you take out the endorsement page it adds a lot to the article it is legitimate info well cited and the brown page included a lot of democratic endorsements as well as senator snowe who generally doesn't endorse in out state races anyway I worked hard on that page and am reinstating it immediatelyCotton Rogers (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also included celebrity endorsement of Dave Cowens and we have an endorsement page for the general presidential election why not delete that too. also democrats endorsed brown and that is worth noting anyway do not re-delete or I will report it as vandalism Cotton Rogers (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "How dare you" is not a good way to open a discussion. I'm sorry I took something out that offended you. I've restored it. That you put a lot of work into it shouldn't be relevant, nor that it's done elsewhere (such as in the presidential election), because the material should stand on its own merit. Perhaps we should maintain the section with limits for unusual endorsements such as the ones you mention. Just a long list of obvious endorsements, however, seems irrelevant and doesn't meet the standards of an encyclopedia. So what do you say?—GoldRingChip 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the apology and I concede I was out of line in my opening, but you where out of line when you deleted that information for reasons of opinion that were not at all factually correct since there were many cross party endorsements not to mention that endorsements are usually a section of other articles pertaining towards elections is absolutely relevant since that is a clear sign of common consensus of what the encyclopedia and wiki community has deemed relevant and necessary to include in an article also to claim that all members of the same political party always give an official endorsement to another in their party is erroneous Brown was mostly endorse by moderate GOP mostly not by those usually associated with the tea party unlike the last election which is important to note for historical posterity same goes for Warren who is mostly endorsed by Liberal democrats and not by those typically associated with the moderate wing such as Joe Lieberman it is important to see where each candidate fits in the complicated prisms of their respective political parties another point is that Obama does it always endorse the democratic candidate some do not want it such as southern and Midwestern dems while others who want it are refused it see
  Rhode Island gubernatorial election, 2010. I think you view of the mechanics, customs and usual workings of a political party are oversimplified it is much more complicated then all of that therefore I'm for letting the section stand and continue as it is now, it might be imperfect but the best course of action is not to set any limits to itCotton Rogers (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Forgot to say in my previous rant that you did not restore it, I did by undoing your edit Cotton Rogers (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can let it stand, as you suggest.—GoldRingChip 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic primary is contested in name - but by that argument so is the current presidential republican nomination. Can someone explain why we can't put the presumptive nominee up? Hipocrite (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for presumptive - [1], [2], [3], and I could honestly do this all day. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• She's presumptive, I agree. She's very likely, I'll add. I think we could put that discussion in the body of the article with citations. But I don't see a reason to declare it a done deal in the info box. Perhaps in the body of the article you could say something like, "[[Elizabeth Warren]] is greatly leading the race to be the Democratic nominee."<ref>citation, blah, blah</ref>—GoldRingChip 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that other, more widely watched articles like

United States presidential election, 2012 should guide our decision making here? I mean, Ron Paul could still win all the remaining primaries and sew up the nomination, right? Hipocrite (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I suppose, but I'm reluctant to expand it to a larger precedent. Once difference, for example, is that Mitt Romney has actually been though a slough of primary elections, whereas Elizabeth Warren has just polled well. Polling is a lot less reliable than elections, even incomplete primaries. I'm suggesting therefore, that we leave the info box blank (or TBD) and put more discussion in the body.—GoldRingChip 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual state elections reflect much less than polls over the entirety of the area that will be elected in the future. Again - Ron Paul could sweep the remaining primaries - not that this is very likley, but it's about as likley as Warren not being the nominee, and if we just looked at the most recent primary, we'd argue that's what is the most likley case. We should not be forced by technicalities to reflect the race wrongly, and the word "presumptive," works both here and there, and is sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it belongs in the info box. That box is more black-letter. Just leave the info box without a stated nominee and write elsewhere that Warren is presumptive.—GoldRingChip 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, GoldRingChip. Hipocrite, please check at WP:What Wikipedia is not. It's not newsmedia, and it's not a campaign platform, and it's not a forecast of future events. Nominations are called nominations after they were made. Leading the polls should be called here "leading the polls", is that too difficult to understand? This is an encyclopedia, it states facts. Kraxler (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is not merely "leading in the polls," she is reliably sourced as the presumptive nominee. Further, remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmedia can write what they like, but Wikipedia does not presume. Check it out at the link I gave you above, Hipocrite. The infobox can only be filled after the primary, and that's absolute. Describe the current state of things in the text of the article. Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree she is "presumed" to be the nominee. Can't we just write that in the body but leave the infobox 'tbd'?—GoldRingChip 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite empty, please help around ! Positive proposals, attacks on the other side, budget. Yug (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps pasting an old version of

WP:COATRACK does not apply to the section on Warren's Native American heritage controversy because it is not irrelevant. This story has been one of the most publicized of this campaign and belongs in a section about the general election. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

FurrySings (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

First, Coatrack is an essay, not a policy. Second, these edits do not violate WP:BLP which states

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Coatrack or not, it was an excessive amount of discussion about a trivial subject. It's a politicized issue: Republicans are running hard on it, and Democrats are trying to brush it away. At most, it deserves a single sentence, no more.—GoldRingChip 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This story has received significant coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle by a variety of sources including

WP:WEIGHT than it deserves. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. This has been the major story of the campaign so far, and deserves at least a paragraph.

Hot Stop (Edits) 03:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not. It's well sourced from a variety of news sources. And there's no consensus to keep removing it.

Hot Stop (Edits) 05:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no consensus to add it. There was consensus on the Elizabeth Warren article that the material was a political attack, and it was removed from that article. Adding it here without consensus is a violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP.

FurrySings (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've got to agree here. This is NPOV violating coatrack. There's way too much emphasis on this here, and anyone interested in writing a neutral balanced article and not pushing a POV should be able to see that. AniMate 08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the election, not Warren. Political controversies should included in this article as they are at

Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010. If User:AniMate feels there is too much of emphasis on it here, why not trim it down instead of eliminating it entirely? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I reverted is, at least partially, because I don't feel the information was added in good faith. The Cherokee controversy is almost twice as long as the entire section about Scott Brown. This wasn't an attempt to write a balanced article, the was an attempt to add as much negative information about one candidate as possible. AniMate 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dominant news story (Cherokee identity) of the election for 6 months is a WP:COATRACK????

This Article reports on the election. Early on, Warren made a series of unforced mis-statements to the press, and raised questions about whether she had ever taken advantage of what has turned out to be a false family narrative. This dominated the airwaves in the only market that counts, the State. It has attracted more attention than any economic policy or campaign ad. For a time, neither Warren nor Brown could appear in public without being dogged by questions about the false Indian narrative, and both avoided the question, Brown successfully, Warren, not so much. This article CANNOT be considered NPOV WITHOUT an extensive section on the controversy, whether you "Like" it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKE) or not. It does not matter if it is a substantive issue or not, Wikipedia does not care, nor is it edited to conform to a person's "likes".

The Rationale given for CONDENSING the story on the Elizabeth Warren page was that it overshadowed her much longer academic career, and that WP:UNDUE applied, since the Senate Campaign was a short part of her personal narrative. Not sure that was appropriate, since the Campaign is also the most notable, but that matters little. We are now speaking of the ELECTION CAMPAIGN, and the most reported story of THE CAMPAIGN has to be there, and must be MUCH longer than lists of not-candidates, obscure polls far removed from the election, and comments on comments by obscure CEOs or Missouri pols. WP:COATRACK is just ridiculous.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As he is at last check on the ballot for the November election for said senate seat in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate election (running as an independent Campaign Page) should he not at least be mentioned and or noted and at least put in the 'Results' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.7 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add details about Bill Cimbrelo, citing a

FurrySings (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Deadline for completion of filing for a Non-Party, or Independent Candidate is Aug 28, so the lack of an update on the Secretary of State site may not imply the negative (they haven't posted Primary results either). [[4]] is marginal as a WP:RS, but the Patriot Ledger definitely qualifies,[[5]] though it only announces his INTENTION to join race, not if he qualified to be on the ballot. Good luck, good catch.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficially confirmed that Cimbrelo failed to get 10,000 signatures by deadline, and will NOT be on ballot. Still a write-in. Welcome comment if this qualifies, IMHO, no.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is disagreement about the extent to which Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee self-identification should be discussed in this article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be mentioned, as a short statement of fact, with sources. It should certainly not be discussed. Besides, similar shortcomings of the incumbent should be mentioned, to get a balanced article. In principle, it should be discussed (in real life, everywhere, not especially here on Wikipedia) whether political campaigns were originally created for mud-slinging or for debating political issues and proposals for the administration-to-come. Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be mentioned, perhaps as a condensed verseion of what is seen at Elizabeth Warren#Cherokee self-identification. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it should be mentioned, perhaps in a short paragraph o even two. It is notable to the election, but it is not essential, as it is not the only important fact in the election. Grammarxxx (talk) 2:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:UNDUE requires this article to include items based on their importance to the Article subject, in this case, the Senatorial Campaign. Neither I, nor (more importantly) WIKIPEDIA care if an editor doe not "Like" a subject, it MUST be included according to its importance. Argue all you want that this is not an "Important" issue; Wikipedia does not care what YOU think SHOULD be important, only that it HAS been important to the Senatorial Campaign. Further, the comments of Kraxler are astoundingly contrary to all Wikipedia guidelines; a truly BIZARRE take on what "balance" is. If a judge says someone killed a victim (aka conviction), you don't then allege (falsely) that the judge also killed someone, to achieve "balance". Warren has blundered in her campaign, and it has dominated the campaign to this point, for better or worse, whereas Brown has not. That is a fact, and that is what Wikipedia cares about, and defines as "importance".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This rant says more about Anonymous209.6's biases than about what should or shouldn't be in this article. Warren made an impromptu speech which became a viral video. Her theme has been picked up by President Obama and other Democrats. She spoke on prime time TV during the Democratic National Convention. Her anti-Wall-Street-bailouts speech has been widely covered on national media. And Anonymous209.6 thinks that the most important event in the campaign is some manufactured 'controversy' (covered in a few newspaper reports) over Warren having listed herself as a minority in a Harvard faculty directory for a few years in the hopes of being invited to some minority events. Reliable sources have reported: she did not bring up her background during the hiring process and it had no impact on Harvard's decision to hire her.
  FurrySings (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only bias is towards WP:NPOV and elimination of WP:UNDUE. All discussions have to be centered on representing relevance TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, namely the Senate race. If a reader lived in Minsk, it is unlikely that they would have heard much about factors that ACTUALLY influence and are of importance TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, namely the Senate race. They might have heard that she spoke at the DNC. If you were arguing about the international view of the US, fine, but the eyeballs in Minsk matter little to an election in Massachusetts. The viral video (impromptu? hardly) was nice, and fired up her base, helping her in the Primary; the DNC speech got a single article in most MA newspapers and TV news broadcasts. Very nice, mention them. The Warren campaign bumbling through contradictory statements, unsupported claims, and making a hash of responding to pretty simple reporters' questions, on the other hand, was a non-stop series of stories and columns in every major MA newspaper's A section for 6 months. The article is supposed to report importance TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, the Senate race, and by that yardstick, it isn't even close. The Cherokee issue IS what has introduced most MA voters to Warren, and has major impact on the race, on the local (the only discussion that counts, since Minskers don't mostly vote) coverage and on the local discussion of the race.

If you wanted to argue in isolation which was more "important", Brown's contribution to Military Jurisprudence, or a TV ad showing him folding laundry, I'd vote for the former. It doesn't matter here; the TV ad has had a major impact ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE, the Senate race, whereas no-one, including Brown, has chosen to mention the former in the Senate race; relevance to this Article is not even close. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One sentence about it, maybe two, will be sufficient in this article.—GoldRingChip 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This story has been covered in a more than a few newspaper reports as
  FurrySings claims. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

WP:WEIGHT is based on prevalence in reliable sources. Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee self-identification has been more prevalent in reliable sources than her viral video. If that receives a whole paragraph, this should receive as least as much. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Level of coverage is ONE factor in determining weight, but not the only one; impact on the race tracks well with MA coverage, not with international/national coverage. Not arguing against your point, just expanding.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Warren's Cherokee self-identification should be discussed in this article. I could add a few lines or perhaps someone else wants to do it. BTW, what do you all think of the way I put headings for each candidate? Also, I removed a fair amount from Warren's section as it was, by comparison to Brown, too long. Could someone more familiar with Brown find some more information for his section to even it out better? Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the reorganization. I would be a little careful of just trimming the Warren profile. I've taken a stab at ONLY taking out redundancy and grammar problems, but the real trim ought to be of the unfiltered platitudes from the website. They aren't that informative, and analysis of what paid ads the two campaigns have released gives a MUCH better picture of actual issues and campaign strategy. I think just trimming the Warren profile ONLY to make it match the Brown one isn't the best approach, would be better to instead get balance by expanding the Brown section. Good work, though.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Include as it has received significant coverage and attention and the media has brought it up specifically as it relates to the race. Instaurare (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Include but reduced for the sake of fairness. Brown's supporters think this should be the dominant theme of the campaign, and Warren supporters want it to disappear. This is a real factual controversy, but dedicating more than a couple sentences to it gives it undue weight.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good wording. I support inclusion but not the previous excessive version. I was disappointed with the edit summary for the extensive version as well: restoring the dominant story for most of the campaign. As per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, prior consensus, and RfC) since that clearly was not where the discussion was at. I had suggested a couple of sentences and that editor should have posted his/her thoughts rather than move boldly ahead and edit whatever s/he wanted into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the section, as was done, has no support whatsoever, and so needs to be undone. Length and emphasis are still being debated, and that is reasonable. I welcome your editing, I merely restored the last existing version as a starting point. I would add that the blow by blow of genealogy should be summarized, not expounded on, and the emphasis should be on Warren's contradictory statements and the impact on the race instead, so I also am not entirely pleased with THAT version. I would say that the discussion of how many sentences is non-productive; there should instead be a discussion of what aspects of the mis-handling of the issue should be included. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Total unanimous consensus it should be included, but certain editors argue that we should reduce it for "fairness", or invent some equivalent blunder (which does not exist) by Brown for "balance". Neither has anything to do with Wikipedia policy. The campaign is what it is, and this cannot possibly be argued that it is not a major influence on the campaign, nor that it has dominated coverage for a significant proportion of the campaign. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding comment is the second response added by

FurrySings (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please try to be civil. There was nothing wrong with noting that Brown's section was shorter than Warren's section. You are going out of your way to disrupt and create drama here and I hope you will stop it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gandydancer; absolutely no criticism intended of your observation that the two sections are of uneven length, and I heartily endorsed your comment above, just advocated expanding the Brown section rather than condensing the Warren section. Our simultaneous posting confused which comment I was referring to, and I apologize for any insult that caused; completely unintended. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry my attempt at fairness appears to you as a way to hurt the Brown campaign.—GoldRingChip 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not concerned with whether your editing hurts a campaign, just that it violates every Wikipedia principle.

    WP:NPOV specifically excludes the concept that if there is a negative report on one campaign there must be a negative report on the other. That is not what WP defines as balance or fairness. The horrific blunder of Todd Akin does not require several articles on Claire McCaskill scandals unless they also have impact on the campaign, and, of course, exist. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    It doesn't violate "every Wikipedia principle." There is no reason for excessive discussion of an issue that one side wants to over-play and the other side wants to eliminate. Two sentences is fine.—GoldRingChip 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN. You are approaching this as if we need to write an article that does not have too much of what a candidate WANTS, basically treating the whole issue as if it is divided into "sides". That is exactly how WP must NOT be edited. The "neutral" in NPOV refers to writing about a subject AS IT IS, namely with the weight being determined by importance, which is partly coverage, partly what is factual, and partly what would give the most accurate accounting of what happened. If a factor affects a race, it is written about in accordance with its impact, not whether your opinion of it is that it is trivial, or whether you think it "should" affect the race. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by the logic of "what affects the race," the entire controversy should be removed, because it had no affect on the poll numbers at the time. Since I don't think that's the correct standard, I suggest instead mentioning it, albeit briefly.—GoldRingChip 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'correct standard' is to use

reliable sources. —ADavidB 06:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly We seem to be dividing into those who want to follow WP guidelines and those who don't, or at least who do not refer to WP standards when arguing. I would have added that other editor's appeals to "fairness" or "balance" aren't really appeals to fairness or balance, but a desire for the Article to conform to what THEY think is fair or balanced. Did not make that observation first, since what is important is what WP guidelines say is important, and insertion of what YOU think is fair or balanced is the very definition of writing opinion not fact.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonymous, you are using the word 'consensus' wrong, it doesn't mean 'what I think is true'. Also, you are not allowed to vote !vote twice in the same RFC.
  FurrySings (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

None of this RfC is set up as a "Vote", and neither are my comments (the "C" in RfC) so don't know what you are talking about.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to respond twice to the same RfC. There are guidelines about this. I suggest you follow them.

FurrySings (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So THIS response and your post above violate RfC policy??? Makes no sense. Most RfCs have multiple comments from individual editors. If there is an actual !Vote structure (and there isn't) and someone marks a comment as their !Vote (which I have not done ONCE, yet), that gets confusing. The consensus remark was confimation that while disagreement still exists on how much material (really should be a discussion on WP:DUE, not arbitrary length), there was ZERO sentiment supporting the total exclusion of the material. (which was your view on the "Coatrack section". There is now ONE !Vote. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the

FurrySings (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you refuse to correctly format your two responses, I have added a note so that it is less misleading for readers of this RfC.

FurrySings (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Include But ensure that the amount of material meets
  WP:UNDUE. It has been a campaign issue. Should state it with a basic summery, and that is it. 1 to 3 sentences. Casprings (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Include it's gotten more attention than anything else in this campaign.
  Hot Stop (Edits) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Exclude Not notable why include? To smear her as a mixed-blood? Are you going to analysis her opponents ancestry as well or will this be an undue weight issue? 94.242.211.90 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Any implications that racist themes were being used in a campaign would be subject to stringent oversight ( see rules at

WP:UNDUE, and both argue definitively for significant expansion on this article. Good luck, and welcome. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Anonymous, I want to remind you that BLP policy extends to talk pages as well. You are defaming Elizabeth Warren (and breaking BLP policy) by stating as facts your own opinions. Please do not do that in the future.

FurrySings (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What BLP violation? Grow up.

Hot Stop (Edits) 14:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You should grow up and learn to speak politely. It is policy here.

FurrySings (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Exclude Why does this matter to her bio uno iota? DoctorLuther (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• exclude -
  WP:TRIVIA. 128.127.107.10 (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

[Note; both the above accounts were begun and only edited on September 16]--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - observe
  FurrySings and Anonymous209.6 both seem to have axes to grind, and might better spend their time debating on their talk pages, as their discussion has become disruptive. Jacotto (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Need a section on Fundraising, and the pact between Brown and Warren to donate to charity any money spent on their behalf by Super-PACs. Might mention (a subject of much discussion) that most of Warren's money comes from OUTSIDE of the State, Brown's from WITHIN, and that BOTH take a lot from Financial companies.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've read that like most Republicans, Brown gets a large part of his funds from Wall Street and finance. Considering how much Warren opposes Wall Street bankers, I find it hard to believe that they would donate large sums to her.

FurrySings (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There already is a section on fundraising, and as I suspected, 8 out of the top 10 contributors to Brown are financial companies (mostly from New York), while none of the top 10 contributors to Warren are financial companies. This shows how reliable talk page pronouncements of 'facts' generally are. Which is why BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as articles.

FurrySings (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Although the actual data, while limited is useful, your ininformed analysis is not. Brown is well known among the local mutual fund community (which donated heavily) for having (quite publicly) solicited input on how Dodd-Frank, which was SUPPOSED to reign in arbitrage and options trading (ie not what they do), would negatively affect institutions NOT involved in risky speculation (and which mostly handle retirement funds). The compromise he worked out on that bill, in exchange for his deciding vote was extremely well received, in Boston, but NOT in New York/Wall Street. Something about his bipartisan compromise on Dodd-Frank deserves to be in the article, and only THEN would the inclusion of his popularity among the local financial community through fundraising be appropriate.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah, Brown gets most of his money from investment banks and financial companies, but it was for a good reason, and it was very well received.

FurrySings (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why anybody thinks they can use Wikipedia articles to change even one person's vote is beyond me. In the RfC above, both Anonymous209.6 and FurrySings have good points but have also each violated policy (in some cases, the ones one claims the other is violating). The truth is, both editors have collectively turned the RfC into a debate, with Anon on the side of Brown and FurrySings on the side of Warren - a debate no longer about whether or not this should be included, but simply attacking each other. "He-said-she-said" that is verifiable and influential on the election should be included, but with the NPOV neither Anon nor FurrySings has provided.RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Predicted rankings section because the ones posted were taken very recently, and gave undue security to the Warren campaign. When the race first began, many were Tossup to Leans R, but the ones up made it appear that this election was a safe Democrat win. Unless all predicted rankings for this race can be complied, I feel they should be kept out, in place of polling which more accurately shows the progress of the race and campaigns. I would also like to point out that very few other election articles have predicted ranking sections. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Grammarxxx that a single snapshot should not be used. See the other polls, for example, that cover over a years' worth of polling. If the prediction rankings had historical comparisons (with citations, of course), then it would be OK.—GoldRingChip 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every senate, gubernatorial, congressional and even mayoral election page uses exactly the same polling table, except for one single senate election page: this one. I propose that it is changed to bring it into line with all the others. I changed it myself but GoldRingChip objected. I don't see there's any reason for keeping this one as the odd one out but some might disagree. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, although a standard type of poll table is a good thing, not many other elections are a close as this one. The candidates have polled even several times, the margin section only means to assist readers, and portray how close this election is. This is a better than average election article, and as such, we must utilize all nessasary tools to convey the information in this article. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters I wouldn't even say that this race has been the closest. The senate election in Virginia has been a tossup for 18 months and it's been more volatile, certainly more so than this one. Plenty of other races have had the candidates close to each other - Virginia, Nevada, Montana, Missouri, Connecticut, Wisconsin, the New Hampshire gubernatorial election and so on. Not to mention all the other races in previous election cycles... Singling out this race as the "closest" or saying that highlighting the margin between the candidates is more useful in this election and this one alone than any other election doesn't make sense to me. Tiller54 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

Talk:United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article, can't wait! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts was held on November 6, 2012" - this is a fairly bland opening, and could be said about any other senate race in 2012. I think it'd be so much more engaging to have "The 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts was the costliest in the state's history." Then specify the date later in the lead, perhaps with "The general election coincided with the 2012 presidential election."
  • Specifying the date first is the standard elections page format. I have re-worded it a little though.
• "Brown became the first Republican to be elected from Massachusetts to the United States Senate since Edward Brooke in 1972" - source?
  • Added.
• I think somewhere in the lead, you should mention how close the polls were for about a year
  • Done.
• For what it's worth, the lead doesn't indicate anywhere that Elizabeth Warren ran as a Democrat. Try adding that somewhere. Remember, not everyone is from the US, so they might not assume that she was a democrat to defeat a republican.
  • Done.
• "After winning her party's nomination, eliminating any need for a primary, in the general election Warren defeated Brown 53-46%. - grammar could be better
  • Changed.
• "The election cost approximately $68 million dollars which made it the most expensive election in Massachusetts history and the 2nd most expensive in the entire 2012 election cycle, next to that year's presidential election, despite the two candidates' having agreed not to allow outside money to influence the race." - first, split this long sentence up. Next, no need to say "dollars". Third, specify it was 2012 USD, perhaps. Fourth, source that it was 2nd costliest "next to that year's presidential election"?
  • All done.
• "Democratic U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy was re-elected in 2006, and died on August 25, 2009 from a malignant brain tumor" - not backed up by source
  • Now it is.
• It'd be great if there was more info on the background of Warren running. That's just as vital as Brown being elected in 2010. Why was she able to clear the field so successfully? I notice there was a poll where Warren was in the lead in September 2011... how did she get there? You mention several people in the list of who withdrew - what happened to them? The bit about Rachel Maddow was interesting, for example. Something more would be great for the "Democratic primary" section, as opposed to the little paragraph that's there.
  • This will take longer, I'll go through the references for what I can find later.
• "stressing his ability to cross party lines - highlighting his votes for the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”" - don't think the dash is that appropriate here. Use a comma instead.
  • Done.
• What was the end result of the Native American bit?
  • Added ref from her wiki page that most voters didn't think it was an issue in deciding who to vote for.
• "Still during the debate, after his comments the debate audience began booing him." - which comments? The Scalia bit?
  • Clarified.
• "Democratic candidate Ed Markey asked his Republican rival Gabriel E. Gomez to sign a similar pledge with him, although he refused" - since they're both technically "he"'s, I'd say "who refused" instead of "although he refused".
  • Done.
• Shouldn't the second paragraph of aftermath go before you mention the lack of a pledge between Markey/Gomez?
  • Yes, and it now does.
• You should probably mention that Brown would not run for Senate or Governor in Massachusetts in 2014. Whether you mention his interest in running in New Hampshire in 2014 is up to you.
  • Duly changed.

All in all, the article is pretty good, but there are some spots that could use improvement. I'll leave the GA review open for seven days. Lemme know if you have any questions! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to request this GAN be put on hold temporarily. My computer has broken and I'm only able to use my library's. My computer should be back in 2 weeks at the latest. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Let me know whenever you get back to it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, any update on this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Grammarxxx hasn't edited since the above note. Unfortunately this will have to be failed until he can return and make the fixes. Wizardman 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the page up and made some of the changes myself. Tiller54 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

Talk:United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Varnent (talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria