Jump to content

Talk:2009 New York's 23rd congressional district special election

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

Ordering of candidates

[edit]

I don't believe we're working with much of a timeline here. Speculation about Aubertine is just that, speculation. I don't believe he's said anything in one direction or another. A candidate who has announced his or her intention to run (as Oot has) deserves to be mentioned off the bat, ahead of speculated candidates, unless there's a huge storyline about the decision process, like for instance Chris Matthews in the PA-Sen-2010 race. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying your going to reorder this if Aubertine gets in the race because of alphabetical order? Or are you saying your putting Oot first because he declared first? Also he is listed as running and Aubertine is listed as potential below. Since when are most election pages not speculation? Also where is your precedence because mine is in every other special elections article, the paragraphed sections are timelined on when the news comes out. Gang14 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite for consistency

[edit]

This article reads like a collaborative project that was never consolidated into a unified whole. For example, let's look at the first paragraph.

New York Governor David Paterson will issue a proclamation for a special election, which will be held within the next 30 to 40 days.[3] Rather than holding primaries, the County Party Committee Chairmen represented within the congressional district have chosen their respective nominees, similar to the procedure of the 20th district special election.[4] On September 29, 2009, Governor Paterson announced that the special election date has been set for the general election day, November 3, 2009.[5]

Patterson will issue a proclamation that he has already set for the general election day?

I don't know the actual facts well enought to safely go back through the article and fix it for consistency. However, someone really needs to clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcoulter (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph did need to updated. Is there anything else? -Rrius (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan polls

[edit]

There are currently seven polls listed, of which four were commissioned either by Doug Hoffman or groups that have endorsed him. Is this what we normally do? It seems to me we usually stick to the independent polls because partisan ones sometimes use question wording, question order, or sampling tweaks to present a rosier result. Any thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have mostly independent polls, I don't mind including an occasional partisan poll if it's clearly labeled. Here, though, the numbers that you point out are troubling. Our coverage of polling consists primarily of regurgitating Hoffman campaign spin. I suggest we use only independent polls, plus a maximum of one partisan poll per candidate (the most recent available would probably be the most informative). JamesMLane t c 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any problem, so long as the partisan polls are clearly labelled as such. I think it'll be hard to avoid WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems if we do anything other than simply list the results of all the (scientific and reputable) polls that've been taken. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem; the partisan polls are not necessarily reliable. The internal poll is actually somewhat more likely to be fair, but the Club for Growth and Minuteman polls have to be viewed skeptically because they are better served by polls that tend to puff up Hoffman than by accurate polls. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice reference

[edit]

Just so you know, New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009, an article I put a lot of work on (mainly because I live in the district), is a GA and might be a good reference to use when working on this article. Note that I'm not dictating or anything, just offering a source to base your work on if necessary. Best of luck! upstateNYer 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of candidates in infobox

[edit]

What is the argument for placing the third-party (although very competitive) candidate first? I get alphabetical, but shouldn't the major parties be listed first? Nevermore | Talk 05:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be listed in the order in which they'll appear on the ballot. That's Owens-Scozzafava-Hoffman. JamesMLane t c 11:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to nitpick, but do you have a source for this? Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're simply applying WP:NOR, but -- I've lived in New York for 30 years, I'm a politics junkie, I know that New York law awards ballot lines for each four-year period based on the votes in the gubernatorial election, and I know that Spitzer won in 2006. But, I suppose, policy is policy, so I'll find a source. I'm hungry, though. Let me eat dinner first. JamesMLane t c 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This turned out to be more work than I'd expected, but here's the sourcing.
Section 7-116 of the New York Election Law is titled “Ballots; order of names on.” Subsection 7-116(1) provides as follows: “In printing the names of candidates on the ballot, the candidate or candidates of the party which polled for its candidate for the office of governor at the last preceding election for such office the highest number of votes, shall be row or column A or one and the candidates of the other parties shall be placed on such ballot in descending order of such votes.” (Source: [1])
Thus, ballot order is still determined by the results of the 2006 election for Governor. You can see those results here. Faso, the Republican, is listed first because the Republican Party was first on the ballot that year, based on the results of the 2002 election. In 2006, however, the Democrats did much better. Spitzer on the Democratic line received more than 2.7 million votes. The 2006 results established this ballot order for the next four years: Democratic-Republican-Independence-Conservative-Working Families.
In this special election, voters will see Owens in Row A. They’ll next see Scozzafava listed twice, in Row B and Row C, because she has both the Republican and the Independence lines. Then will come Hoffman in Row D. Finally, in Row E, will come Owens again, this time as the Working Families nominee. (Scozzafava and Owens can aggregate the votes they receive on these multiple lines, because New York allows electoral fusion. It’s conceivable, for example, that Hoffman could get 35% of the vote on the Conservative line, outpointing Owens’s 34% on the Democratic line, but Owens gets 3% on the Working Families line and thus wins the seat with a greater total number of votes.) JamesMLane t c 01:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Colour

[edit]

Okay I realise that the Democrats have to be blue and the Republicans have to be red, but the orange for teh Conservatives is too close to red. In fact I thought it was red until the ..idk 13th glance. I propose the Conservative colour should be black or dark blue. I think this is an apolitical or apartisan view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 October 2009

Blue or black might be too close to the Democratic blue. Green or yellow would be more distinguishable. JamesMLane t c 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of orange at the party's article would suggest that colour is associated with them, as does its use as the background colour for James Buckley at List of United States Senators from New York. Black is a horrible idea because the polling section uses orange as a background colour. Black would sorta suck as a background colour for black text. Green is not a good idea because it is associated with the Green Party even in here in the US. Thus, if for some reason people feel it is necessary to use some other colour than the one already used at Template:Party shading/Conservative Party, yellow is the only one that isn't actually a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 October 2009
The Conservative candidate here was a member of, and contested the nomination for, a party whose color is designated red, so assigning him a color not far off from red isn't inappropriate, in my view. It is widely expected that he will end up caucusing with the "red" party's representatives, if elected.Bdell555 (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colors do not represent degrees of conservatism vs. liberalism, they represent specific parties. I'm changing it to yellow to avoid confusion. Masebrock (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, nevermind. I didn't know orange was used in the Conservative Party logo. Orange makes sense now.Masebrock (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I actually agree that orange makes sense. But why does it have to be the dark orange they are using right now. The light/bright orange used in the polling section is better in my opinion. Can we change it to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disparity in candidate photos

[edit]

The Hoffman photo is considerably larger than either of the others. I have no facility with images, but perhaps someone who does could crop the Hoffman photo by removing about a third of it, from the right margin going leftward? That would make it more comparable to the other two while not losing any of Hoffman's face. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bdell555 has now accomplished this. The page looks much better as a result. Many thanks! JamesMLane t c 01:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed images of Scozzafava. The new one is probably more current than the old one. Lest anyone complain this is either prejudicial or unduly favorable to the candidate, the candidate's promotional "Dede for Congress" website indicates that the photo is "approved for use [b]y members of the media" and is accordingly of the same status as Hoffman's. In any case, as a promotional photo associated with the event that makes these candidates most nationally and internationally notable (this 2009 Congressional special election), the new image creates better grounds for a fair use rationale than the old image.Bdell555 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Scozzafava and Hoffman are under attack by copyright zealots who seem to be inclined to dismiss the fact both photos have been released for "media" use by the candidates' respective campaign websites. I believe that removing their photos and leaving just Owens would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV (a "fundamental" Wiki principle) and more importantly represent a triumph of legalese over common sense. Editors interested in preserving the photos are advised to advocate for their use at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#promotional_images_of_public_office_candidates
and/or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Doug_Hoffman_promo_photo.JPG
and/or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Dede_Scozzafava_promo_photo.jpg
Bdell555 (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our use of these disputed photos has created a new disparity, which perhaps you can rectify. The photos of Scozzafava and Hoffman, being promo photos preferred by the candidates, are much better than what we're currently using for Owens.
If you go to this page on Owens's campaign website, you'll find some photos, preceded by this statement: "For Media: Click here for high resolution candidate photo". Clicking on that link takes you to this page, which is a good photo of Owens. It's comparable to the promo photos of Scozzafava and Hoffman that are now in the article.
It seems to me that your rationale would apply to this photo as well, which should therefore be substituted in the article as long as we're using the promo photos of Owens's opponents. JamesMLane t c 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the Owens photo should perhaps instead be brought in as copyrighted but with free use allowed as opposed to non-free "fair use". If that works the other two could be similarly re-categorized. Will attempt tomorrow.Bdell555 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because photos are "for media use" doesn't mean that they're free. I'm sure that Owens/his campaign/whoever owns the photos wouldn't allow them to be used for any use (the definition of free content). We have a free image of Owens, and so we are not going to replace it with a fair use image just to depict him. The current Hoffman picture fails Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines that it "can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)", emphasis mine. I've emailed his campaign to see if they'll release one of the non Jake LaDuke ones. Of course we can't have just one of their picture's up, but we can't flout WP:NONFREE either. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that we can have just one of their pictures up, if we have a picture of that candidate that we can use, but no such picture of the other candidate. Including both is preferable but we shouldn't suppress information (a photo that complies with Wikipedia rules) while we wait for the article to be perfect.
Emailing the campaign is a good idea, and a suitable license would resolve the problem -- but while we're making efforts to achieve such a result, can we leave a policy violation in place? JamesMLane t c 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to continue to leave the photos alone, since the prospects of having any photo of Hoffman are low, and the rationale for changing the photo of Owens is predicated upon having a (promotional) photo of Hoffman. If Hoffman is elected, of course, an indisputably free image will become available since a US government photo will be taken of him.Bdell555 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New poll for the poll table

[edit]

On October 31, Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling showed Hoffman surging ahead in an unweighted poll, leading Democrat Bill Owens by 19 points in a three-way race and by 15 points in a two-way race. The poll was taken from a pool of "a few hundred interviews." [2] Wsw248 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that earlier today because I didn't think, being unweighted and incomplete, those results could be considered reliable. The PPP blog now says numbers will be released "later this evening", so I think we should wait until then. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose it is better to hold off until then. Wsw248 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman photo

[edit]

The File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG has been deleted because it did not qualify as a proper use of "fair use" under Wikipedia:NFCC#1, which states that fair use images may be used in Wikipedia articles when "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." A consensus has developed that images of living people do not qualify, because a free alternative could be created with a reasonable amount of effort. Someone could take a picture of Hoffman as he is campaigning and upload it. Someone could contact the campaign to get a free version (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Someone could find a free version in an image search engine. If someone from the campaign wishes to donate a free image, please read Wikipedia's free content policy and contact OTRS and review Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. For further questions, consult Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG--Blargh29 (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scozzafava Campaign

[edit]

I have re-inserted the Scozzafava candidacy in the "election box" and take great issue with an assertion that Ms. Scozzafava is in any position to "withdraw" her nomination at this stage of the election. Her name will appear on the ballot, she can/will garner legitimate votes and remains politically active in her support for the democratic candidate. She can, however, certainly "suspend" her campaign...which has been accurately recorded and cited in the article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In America, you are certainly permitted to take issue with anything. However, the candidate withdrew and to say otherwise or to represent something different by including her photo space on the page is contrary to WP:OR, WP:Verify and WP:Common Sense.
She may be "politically active", but she is not running in her own right. The great thing about Wikipedia, and newspapers is that they can be updated much faster than a ballot Majorite (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your perspective, that she is no longer "running in her own right" has zero impact on either the LEGAL existence or ONGOING legitimacy of her candidacy. In itself, that ongoing (by LAW) candidacy is an integral and absorbing (if not THE absorbing) aspect of this election. She is on, and will remain on, the ballot (twice in fact). There is a high liklihood that she will garner votes and appears intent on actively supporting/opposing the candidacy of others. I simply cannot imagine any legitimate justification for ignoring those realities by simply "erasing" her name from the article's "election box". I urge any interested parties to comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that the Republican candidate quit the race. Legally she is not running. If you are an expert in New York election law, then cite the applicable statutes here. Otherwise, please stop entering false information.

G.O.P. Moderate, Pressed by Right, Abandons Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: October 31, 2009 "A moderate Republican whose candidacy for an upstate New York :::Congressional seat had set off a storm of national conservative opposition abruptly withdrew on Saturday"[3]

Majorite (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that the Republican candidate quit the race.
The reality isn't that she "withdrew" her candidacy. Her "candidacy" is no longer hers to "withdraw".
Legally she is not running.
Her name is on the ballot...twice. Voters may cast legitimate votes that will be tallied in her behalf. "Legally" she remains a legitimate candidate..."running" or not.
If you are an expert in New York election law, then cite the applicable statutes here.
I'm afraid common sense is all I can offer at this point...but perhaps I'll be able to accommodate you after some research.
Otherwise, please stop entering false information.
I'll anxiously await your legal cites for "Legally she is not running" as well.JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorite has reverted my edit for the third time prior to any sense of consensus being reached in this discussion. I'm not particularly interested in invoking 3RR over this and would appreciate the timely input of any other editors who might offer an observation. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the election turns out like the latest poll (with Scozzafava at 6%), she shouldn't be in the infobox. Since it's not certain that she won't get a sizable vote (10-15%), we should leave here up there until the results come in. Of course if a non-marginal number of people wind up voting for her, then we should keep her in the infobox. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. You are suggesting (if I follow your premise correctly) that the very existence of a "candidacy" should/can be predicated upon its relative success/failure on election day? Doesn't that strike you as being rather un-encyclopedic? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that candidates don't go in the infobox, successful candidates do. If two candidates are close, and the third is pretty far back, (like 40-40-5), the third place candidate probably shouldn't be in the infobox. If the article was "campaign for the 2009 special election ..." that's a different story, but the article is about the election, and that's what the infobox should focus on. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in other articles, candidates must draw an (admittedly vague) "sizeable" amount of support to reach the infobox. Otherwise, they should be covered in the article. For example, see Ohio gubernatorial election, 2006. Tytrain (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there needs to be any hurry to come to a decision on whether Scozzafava should be in the infobox. I'm happy for her to remain there for now, then stay or go as necessary when the results come in. (I think a minimum of 5% should be required, but that also doesn't need to be decided yet.) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your responses. There does appear to be a consensus (If I'm interpreting your comments correctly) that inclusion in the election infobox is probably fluid and best decided in consideration of both projected results (during a campaign) and actual election results (post campaign). This appears to be similar to a consensus suggested in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-29 United States presidential election, 2008 and Template talk:Infobox Election#United States party nominees in infobox with the exception of a suggested permanent inclusion once a pre-determined threshhold has been reached during the campaign (which I'm also inclined to favor and have obliquely argued for here).
Within the latter, the following summation was offered by User:Timmeh (which I'll tailor to reflect state considerations and solicit suggested edits...particularly in the "polls" to be consulted).
Candidates must surpass the following requirements in order to be listed in the infobox prior to a Congressional election:
  • The party candidate must exceed 12% of the statewide popular vote in any one of the following polls: ABC News, Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Ipsos, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, or USA Today.
  • Once a candidate gains the 12% milestone, he or she will remain in the infobox until the election. This assumes the candidate is running around that figure and has not lost support entirely due to some scandal, gaffe, etc. If support drops below 6.6% (see [1980 United States election article]) then discussion should ensue on the talk page to see if there is consensus to remove the candidate.
  • Any candidates who do not meet these criteria may be listed in a prominent wikilink to "Other candidates."
Any suggestions/edits to/comments on this particular approach? JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny -- no there isn't any hurry now that the polls will soon close. I will note that there is a big difference between insisting that the withdrawn Republican candidate Scozzafava be put in the info box with no indication that she had withdrawn - during the time the polls were open vs. after they closed. 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


I think her names needs to appear. The reason is that she has been a viable candidate during the time of the election- not only is her name on the ballot, but a good number of absentee ballots voted prior to election day were cast, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to keep it on display. She IS the official candidate of the republican party. Just because she decided she can't win, and stopped campaigning, does not affect in any way the legality of the ballot. Should, for some unknown reason, voters decided today to cast their votes for her, she legally continues to be elected. No- it needs to be on display. My 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim E85 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Jim E85 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps anecdotal, perhaps not...but the NY23 scoreboard on CNN has been displaying all 3 candidates since I've been watching. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was a major part of this race and should be in the infobox. The only case for taking her out is that she dropped out. That should bend to the reality that she was a significant part of the race, was a major-party candidate, and still garnered a significant vote share for a third place finisher in a US House race. What's more, even if her withdrawal was the only important fact about her, it was an important part of the story of this race; perhaps the important part. As such, it is appropriate to introduce her in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News also showed her on the running tally last night. So along with CNN above we now have at least two major news organizations that considered her important enough to list, so it seems pretty clear to me that she should stay on the info box. Jon (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reader with even a passing acquaintance with American politics will know that, in almost all races, there are candidates from the two major parties, and sometimes others. A reader who sees an infobox or candidate listing that omits one of the major parties would be surprised, might assume that there was no candidate on that ballot line, etc. Therefore, regardless of what standards are applied to minor-party or independent candidates (percentage of the vote, percentage support in polls, receipt of campaign financing, participation in debates, etc.), major-party candidates should always be listed. Aside from that general point, I agree with Jim E85 and Rrius that the particular circumstances of this race call for including Scozzafava on the same basis as the other candidates. JamesMLane t c 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute concerned whether the page, during the voting should represent at the top that the Republican candidate, Scozzafava was still running. JakeInJosie certainly thought so -- thought the info box shouldn't carry any indication she had withdrawn, thought the article should say in the lead that she had been nominated by the party, but that it shouldn't say in the lead that she had quit the race.

Here is an interesting, and short quote for you all to read

The attacks on Ms. Scozzafava [the Republican candidate] eventually took their toll, and she stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh. But the ballots had already been printed, and early results showed her picking up 6 percent of the vote. It was unclear how many of those were protest votes, and how many simply did not know she had left the race.[4]

Thus there is no dispute here now that the election has ended.Majorite (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to consensus building, recorded edits and dialogue here reflect quite well what this "dispute concerned". As you appear to be a relatively new editor, perhaps you might benefit from WP:CON.JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background: WP:OR?

[edit]

This section currently incorporates the following in the 2nd paragraph...

Although nine-term U.S. Representative McHugh was consistently elected with over 60% of the vote and ran unopposed in 2002, in recent years the district has been more competitive in United States presidential elections.[citation needed] George W. Bush narrowly carried the district in 2004 against John Kerry, 51%–47%. Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the district 52%–47% in 2008.[8] Democrats have also recently done well at the state level.[citation needed]

While this may or may not contain credible observations, these observations (highlighted) were not contained in the originally provided cite and appear to be WP:OR. In addition, use of the descriptive "narrowly carried" (also uncited) suggests a rather self-serving interpretation of "narrow" (4% is narrow yet 5% is not?).

I believe this paragraph is WP:OR (and, perhaps, POV) as currently comprised and warrants either a significant re-write or deletion.

Comments appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rv'd the deletion of a section WP:OR and 2 cn tags by User:Rjensen stating "well known facts reported in all the media do not need citations" as justification in the edit summary. I take issue with 1. a premise that WP policy on verifiability excludes purported "well known facts reported in all the media" 2. just how "well known" these purported facts are and 3. are they actually "facts" at all.
As to objection 2 and 3, if these "well known facts" are indeed "reported in all the media", proper citation should be a relatively simple exercise. As to objection 1, while I'm more than prepared to defer to User:Rjensen 's academic credentials, his assertion on the mandates of WP:Verify strike me as being unsustainable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't just tag it, fix it! I cleaned it up and I think it's good now. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply affording User:Rjensen (or anyone else for that matter) an opportunity to work at some consensus. There's no great rush here as I see it JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? Seriously? It needs a reference and better wording. There's no debate, just a poorly structured section (with a lovely "Original Research" banner which you are apparently fond of). I worked on it more while keeping a bit of Rjensen's stuff there. Feel free to improve it, as the whole section is still awkward. If you want to blindly revert it back, go ahead. You can have fun waiting for "consensus". Nobody's stopping you (or going to be here to argue with you). Oh, and reverting back to the "citation need" crap would be a dick move. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I found your subsequent edit to be a significant improvement over your first. As you are apparently quite familiar with the political landscape in that area, your contribution was a good one (and adequately sourced). I'm pleased that my lovely OR banner may have played some small part in effecting these welcome edits. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Section: Post-election Analyses

[edit]

With post-election "analysis" having already been introduced (and anticipating similar content as the ramifications of this rather interesting and high-profile election are dissected and digested), I have added a new section to accommodate such content. I'm not married to either the title or its concept and will look to other election articles as to how this is handled. Comments solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district_special_election&oldid=1196547977"