Talk:2014 United States Senate election in Michigan

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

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress

	United States portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Journalistic citations required.

All listed candidates, whether actual or potential, must be backed by linked bonafied journalitic citations. Otherwise, the name will be removed from the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder again that ALL listed candidates MUST be backed by linked bonafied journalistic citations. Actual listing in the Michigan Secretary of States office's list of candidates is also acceptable. But self-promotion IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, we really need to work on your spelling. It's "bona fide" not "bonafied."Kevinrexheine (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, since Mr. Whitney has gone to the trouble of setting up a campaign website and social media page, let me do some scrounging around and see if I can't find a Michigan SoS filing reference. Could you give me a few hours before you pull the Terry Whitney listing?Kevinrexheine (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, self-promotion is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Get the required acceptable link(s) first. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the linked citation MUST BACK UP THE EDIT. Links to articles requiring a subscription to read are not allowed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Election Polling

In my opinion, since only Gary Peters (D) and Terri Lynn Land (R) have officially declared for this race, all general election polling involving any other match-up pairing should be tucked under Hypothetical Polling. Does this make sense? Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.R.S. Citations

The Michigan Information and Research Service articles are indeed tucked behind a subscription-only firewall. However, being a Michigan resident who happens to be active in the state's politics, I have the luxury of being able to get to those articles, and can obtain transcriptions easily enough. The title and subject matter are easy to verify on the main MIRS site (http://www.mirsnews.com/) by entering either in the "search" form on the Welcome page. I'm curious as to why the transcriptions don't count, and what would be necessary to correct that issue. Kevinrexheine (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if a non-subscriber CANNOT READ THE ARTICLE and there is no easy way to read the article, it cannot be used to support the edit and all edits requiring a subscription to read the supporting article WILL BE REMOVED. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you avoided an answer to a key question. If you check the links tor Terry Whitney and the October 6-10 poll by Mitchell Research, I did provide a transcription. I asked why the transcriptions aren't valid, and you haven't answered. Kevinrexheine (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the resolution, if I read the discussion correctly, is that there is "nothing wrong with using a subscription source" (apparently, Wikipedia has a policy on this), and that this isn't a violation in and of itself. So, if you'd please be so kind as to restore what you removed, I'd greatly appreciate it.Kevinrexheine (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAYWALL, being behind a paywall does not mean a source cannot be used. It is no different from citing a publication that is not readily available for instant verification. The criteria is that the information can be verified -- not that it can be instantly accessed by anyone. older ≠ wiser 03:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But without another source to verify the info, how do we know that it is not self-serving or biased propaganda? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this citation? Is this a blog or is it acceptable? [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Ron Gunzberger's Politics1," my answer at the moment is that I'm not sure. Apparently, his rationale for including Mr. Whitney is the candidate's own website, which doesn't seem much different from self-promotion. Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why, when I cite from MIRS, I include a companion citation that transcribes the article from the original source. (As I'd mentioned previously, copying the title line from the transcription into the "search" function will verify the presence of the article behind the paywall.) The Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS) is a news-gathering service that specializes in Michigan political news coverage. Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below as MIRS is on the blacklist of citations not allowed on Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A poll with an MIRS citation and no other source found had to be removed because of the blacklist of MIRS. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Major Party Candidates

I propose a compromise, Tiller54. Each non-major party candidate gets a separate sub-category under a general header. There are several ballot-qualified third parties in Michigan:

America's Independent Party . . . no longer ballot access qualified, according to the Michigan Secretary of State
Green Party of Michigan
Libertarian Party of Michigan
Natural Law Party
Socialist Party of Michigan . . . no longer ballot access qualified, according to the Michigan Secretary of State
U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan

So, is providing each applicable category under a general header acceptable? Kevinrexheine (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the manual of style for links, they should not be included in headings. Also, the heading "Declared Non-Major Party Candidates" is far too cumbersome. Each party gets its own section, there's no need to lump them all in together. Then, declared, withdrawn, potential and declined candidates can be listed underneath. Like this. Or this. Tiller54 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, in Michigan, non-major parties don't participate in the publicly-funded primaries. Their candidates are nominated at a state convention. Kevinrexheine (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, just swap the word "primary" for "convention". Tiller54 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A convention is an event, not a campaign. Thus, any properly-filed and duly-verified non-major party candidates should simply be listed by party affiliation (or as an independent candidate). One of the truly nice things about America is that each state is supposed to run its own show, which is why 56 different state and territorial jurisdictions will produce 56 different sub-cultures within the American melting pot. Just because it's done a certain way in Maine or Florida or Idaho doesn't mean that it'll be done exactly that way in Michigan. Frankly, as a native and current Michiganian, I can tell you that the heading "Declared Non-Major Party Candidates" may seem cumbersome, but it's exactly what we'd expect to see (and precisely how we'd expect to see it worded). Kevinrexheine (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why it says "Democratic primary" and not "Democratic Party campaign". People know that "Democratic" refers to the Democratic Party just like they know "Libertarian" refers to the Libertarian Party. There may be several Libertarians running and there will be a vote, which will be recorded here. So, we do more than just write the present candidate's name. Putting "Declared Non-Major Party Candidates" is cumbersome and bizarre because then we'd have to add "Potential Non-Major Party Candidates" and "Declined Non-Major Party Candidates" and so on. Tiller54 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply "Non-Major Party Candidates" as the section header, with the candidates listed under party-specific sub-sections? (I've edited the section to show what it'd look like.) Non-major party candidates in Michigan rarely gain traction any further up the ticket than county races, so it doesn't make sense at this juncture to give each non-major party its own section. Kevinrexheine (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea but how about "Minor Parties" instead? Then the candidates can be listed under each party. Tiller54 (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that works. Then, I think, the state convention information for each applicable minor party could be provided under each party, with a sub-header on the same level as "Candidates" (thus at 3.1.2 for the Libertarian Party of Michigan). Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014

Cyberbot II has detected links on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://t.co/U1hjX3hP3K
Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014

Cyberbot II has detected links on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://t.co/U1hjX3hP3K
Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014

Cyberbot II has detected links on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://t.co/U1hjX3hP3K
Triggered by \bt\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filing deadline has passed

Now that the filing deadline has long passed, we know who filed and who did not file. So using this citation [2], the candidate list was updated. Both Peters and Land are unopposed on their respective party primary ballots. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is not a reliable source

Citations must be from bonafied journalistic sources or from official sources. The journalistic citations must also be non-biased reliable sources. Breitbart is infamous for doctoring news stories to fit their biases. Just ask Shirley Sherrod. Therefore, biased propaganda sources such as Breitbart are not reliable sources for citations. If the poll's citation is from the pollster itself or from a reliable source, then it can be allowed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the questionable edit was reverted, I sent the editor a message regarding biased sources commissioning push polls which are not reliable. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the poll was commissioned by Breitbart, I said it appeared that way. After re-reading the link, apparently not. You are confused as to what a push poll is. Even if the poll had been commissioned by Breitbart, that wouldn't make it a "push poll", the same way a poll commissioned by the Sierra Club or the AFL-CIO or even the DSCC isn't a "push poll". A push poll is never released to the public like this because it isn't a real poll. It's a marketing technique used to spread disinformation (eg: they'll call people up, ask "if you knew that candidate X murdered children, would that make you more or less likely to vote for them?" and hang up when people have answered). Furthermore, such techniques are never conducted by serious polling organisations such as Wenzel. The article you linked to explains it all very clearly, including the note in the introduction that "Push polling has been condemned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research" - of which Wenzel is a member. Has Breitbart "edited" the poll to "fit their bias"? Of course not, because doing so would get them in a lot of trouble from Wenzel. Is another source preferable to Breitbart? Absolutely, and as soon as one is available (this poll has only just been released), I'll replace it myself. But until then, it'll do. Tiller54 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This journalistic source at [3] states that Wenzel is a Republican polling firm. Now would you say that it's a push poll? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's a "Republican polling firm" in the same way that Public Policy Polling is a "Democratic polling firm" and neither of them conduct "push polls"! Please actually read the article on push polls. Tiller54 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This piece about Wenzel raises red flags at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please actually read the article push poll. Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the Huffington Post piece about Wenzel. I still consider it a push poll. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)0[reply]

The Huffington Post link isn't a news article, it's a piece from a contributor that was posted at "conwebwatch", a liberal website that serves only to "document the distortions, excesses and hypocrisy of these conservative media sites". You can think about it whatever you like, it's not a push poll. Push polls don't have margins of error and sample sizes and they don't ask "are you going to vote for A or B". I have now replaced the Breitbart link, like I said I would. Tiller54 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results from official Michigan web site

I noticed that the uncited election results in the infobox do not match the cited election results in the results table. I made the correction in the infobox. The citation is at [5]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since the U. S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan is the Michigan affiliate of the Constitution Party (United States), is there a way that we could permanently modify the election box format so that the color for the USTPM matches the color used for the CPUS? (Kevinrexheine (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140925104242/http://weaskamerica.com:80/2014/09/21/illinois-michigan/ to http://weaskamerica.com/2014/09/21/illinois-michigan/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]