![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How is this relevant to the recall election, exactly? In their private lives, these individuals are allowed to sign petitions. It seems to be that this suggests that the individuals who signed the petitions are biased, but there's no evidence to suggest that. If that's why it's there, then it's a subtle synthesis of existing information to a conclusion that noone has concluded, failing WP:V. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This story gained traction when Gannett Company journalists reported that several judges signed the recall petition. The implication from the news agency being that judges are supposed to be impartial and therefore ought not be signing the recall petitions. Then the Gannett Company acknowledged that it's own journalists have signed the recall petitions and will be taking disciplinary action regarding that because the company professes to be impartial. This is clearly in my view related to the recall election. I'm open to this being included in it's own section if someone thinks that perhaps it ought not belong in the background section. However, I do believe it belongs in the article and relevant to the recall election. Stylteralmaldo ( talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference [1] no longer works. You can do a search for the story and it comes up with a synopsis and offer to sell you a copy of the story. Only current stories are free. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing is, but if this is important to someone, you might want to look into it. Another-sailor ( talk) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I would say this information is relevant, because it demonstrates the Populism associated with a recall, specifically "populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process." Patriot1010 ( talk) 06:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone spell out how many people need to sign a petition in order to start a recall election? Why are there primaries? Most important, (and this is not a rhetorical question) please explain what protections there are against kicking out an elected official anytime that their approval rating drops below 50%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.48.162 ( talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
A select group of people continue to remove Gladys Huber's name from the Democratic Primary results. Regardless of your politics, this person is on the ballot, and should be listed. S51438 ( talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
For the third time, I will revert vandalism by an IP user. Time to block them? S51438 ( talk) 03:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
There's very little information about the general recall election. The date is mentioned at the top, but not in the section about the general election. It's not stated anywhere if there will be a separate question "Should Governor Walker be recalled from office?", as in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election or if obtaining the petitions means that the election is essentially run over again, with Walker eligible to run, and being "recalled" if he loses. Argyriou (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The recall election for lieutenant governor is completely separate from the gubernatorial recall. Therefore neither candidate has a running mate. If anything the lieutenant gubernatorial election should be its own page. -- 50.50.169.91 ( talk) 02:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This section draws conclusions about the numbers in the recall primary, but only sites a self-published blog. This should be removed, as Wikipedia is not supposed to draw conclusions, only report what is published in reliable sources. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC).
Not taking a firm position one way or another on inclusion of intrade, but here are a few refs dicussing intrade, directly in context of this election.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly articles for Prediction Markets, Intrade specifically
Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?
Public Opin Q (2008) 72 (2): 190-215. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn010
Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien
Oxford Journals
The data of Prediction Markets, in which Intrade is not only mentioned numerous times in scholarly articles, the data and results of Intrade have been used in contemporary social science research.
A good summary of this as it relates to elections is:
"Recent successes in prediction markets, predicting both public events and corporate outcomes, have generated substantial interest among social scientists, policy makers and the business community. While these markets have their limitations, they may be useful as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future."
Which was found in: "Prediction markets for business and public policy", the Melbourne review Andrew Leigh and Justin Wolfers
Andrew Leigh is an economist in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Email: andrew.leigh@anu.edu.au. Website: http://econrsss.anu.edu. au/~aleigh/
Justin Wolfers is Assistant Professor of Business and Public Policy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Faculty Research Fellow with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Affiliate with the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a Visiting Scholar with San Francisco Federal Reserve and a Research Fellow with Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Email: jwolfers@wharton.upenn.edu. Web: www.nber.org/~jwolfers
These are just two quick searches of how Prediction Markets, specifically Intrade, is being used as the latter article pointed out - "as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future," namley election polling which more often than not has a bias depending on who is conducting the poll.
WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the most reliable form of source there is. Intrade data is used in research. Why should we omit this data for an election when it is present, publicly available, and widely used? The Prediction Market for this election, and the organization that collects and publishes this information has academic consensus WP:RS/AC, used widely by others WP:USEBYOTHERS, and is purely a neutral opinion with no bias, (unlike polling) WP:RSOPINION.
These are all hallmarks in Wikipedia's WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Censoring this data when it is so widely available and used, (and trusted) does not make sense. Patriot1010 ( talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
First, America69, how about we lay off the Ad hominem for this article?
A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here. However, I believe that any predictions, be they Intrade or professional firms, have no value in an encyclopedia as they add nothing to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Therefore, it should not be included. I believe that I am not in the majority on this (vis à vis predictions, in general), as it's just my opinion.— GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am an Administrator, and as such I have been asked to intervene to stop an edit war. Please do not revert other people edits so frequently just to prove a point. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Edit warring— GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is a betting game which is influenced by an unknown number of participants whose motivations are unknown included in an article that is intended to share real information about a real world event? This is silly. Start an Intrade article or a guessing game article and add all the Intrade guessing game stuff there. Please stop adding superfluous trash to an item that is trying to provide something close to actual information--not someone's juiced up imaginings. This really cheapens and discredits Wikipedia. We have agreed to exclude "partisan" polls--how do we know this isn't a hidden partisan ploy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyjohlc ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Patriot1010--did you actually read the Erikson & Wiezien (2008) article? From the abstract: " ... challenges the optimistic assessment of election markets ... when poll leads are properly discounted, poll-based forecasts outperform vote-share market prices." And then the Rothschild--another Wharton faculty member--(2009) article also from "Political Opinion Quarterly" says "... debiased market-based forecasts provide more accurate probabilities ... than debiased poll-based forecasts." OK, please explain to me the debiasing methods that have been used in interpreting the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall "market." Participants create the result they want simply by registering and naming the prices and number of shares they desire to trade--or do I misunderstand the game? I am not necessarily questioning the potential usefulness of Intrade methods but in this instance from what I can see it is operating as a prediction game, not a scientifically applied process.
garyjohlc
I'll add my 2 cents and vote NO on Intrade. I think that makes it 6-1 unless I am missing someone. To Patriot1010, at this point you are not helping your cause. Continually fighting with other editors when no one else is supporting your argument makes you look like a troll trying to stir up trouble rather than someone trying to make good edits. Incitatus13 ( talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My take is that if a polling section is appropriate, so is mention of intrade. Both are used for predicting an outcome, though their methodology differs. According to Charlie Cook and Paul Krugman, intrade is a decent way of measuring *conventional wisdom* with regards to the probability of some event. And Charlie Cook is highly skeptical of that tool, Krugman slightly less. Cite: http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-the-folly-of-crowds-20120517 Krugman: "Betting markets don’t have any mystical power, but they do summarize conventional wisdom pretty well..." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/health-care-resurrection/ I personally put somewhat more credence in these tools, since if the betting price veers too far off from fundamentals, rich profits are obtainable. Further thoughts: a) I guess "Predicting the 2012 Wisconsin Recall" could in theory have its own page, encompassing polling, expert opinion and prediction markets. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Measure for Measure ( talk) 05:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The information is sourced, and relevant. I am not sure that it must be included, but I am sure that those that are trying to say the information must not be included are misuing policy. In any case, the issue will be resolved in just a few days. Don't edit war over it. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Woe, guys, enough of the edit war. Seems like there is still a failure to agree on a consensus here. And for the record, from what I have noticed in other discussions Wikipedia likes to allow plenty of opportunity for discussion before declaring a consensus either way. I think you are both jumping the gun and declaring consensus is on your side. Let's scale it back and just let the process work out as this mediation appears to have been concluded just today from what I've seen. How about some form of a compromise? Anyway, from what I know about Intrade, doesn't the prediction change every couple of minutes based on what people are bidding? With a lack of any real time updating ability on this site, what is the value of having a table listing a value that an editor noticed during a specific visit to the site? I don't see the value of Intrade predictions, but maybe as a compromise have a line or two in the article stating that Intrade gave Walker a greater than 90% chance of winning, or something along those lines instead of devoting a table to it? I'll even go ahead and do the work of making the change and you can see if you approve, then if someone still doesn't like it just change it back. Incitatus13 ( talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool, looks like at least one side is willing to compromise, we're halfway there. Not sure what you mean by the sockpuppet comment, the only edits I see after mine are to endorsements unless I'm not seeing something, and it seems that anonymous IP editor has been working hard on those all night, lol. My compromise is only a rough skeleton, so feel free to improve it if it needs anything. Incitatus13 ( talk) 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Should election speculator and election predictor data be placed on Election Wiki pages?
Protaganists state (Should be included) because:
Antagonists state (Should not be included) because:
Talk page is located at the Talk:Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2012 talk page, under Intrade [ [5]] Patriot1010 ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
[moved RfC] Coastside ( talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Are snapshots of sourced and relevant Prediction Markets appropriate to add to election pages (separate, but following a poll section), to supplement Poll data? (Example Below)
Predictor | Date(s) administered |
Sample size |
Change | Scott Walker (R) |
Tom Barrett (D) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intrade | May 26, 2012 | 6165 | -3% | 87.4% | 12.6% |
Intrade | June 2, 2012 | 10,823 | +1.6% | 97.3% | 2.7% |
Patriot1010 ( talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some NPOV issues with the way that Arthur Kohl-Riggs, Walker's primary, opponent, is being described. No source has been provided to confirm that he is a regisisterd Democrat, or that he is not a registered Republican (he is being described as a "fake Republican"). Also, the description "political agitator" seems to be biased. FreakyDaGeeky14 ( talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move articles as proposed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
– I see little purpose to have the year at the end of these articles, as this is the first gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin's history, as also with the ones that happened in California and North Dakota. The titles should be kept as short and concise as possible. -- MuZemike 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please add explanation/legend of what LV, RV, and DV mean in the first opinion polls table. 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Good working with you all, even those that disagreed. See you when the results are final. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The major news outlets have called it, but shouldn't (as voting is still coming in at this time) the article really reflect the status of the it being called once we've received full vote counts (unless a candidate has conceded)? Or something from when the department of state report it? Dtheweather9 ( talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does the article contain nothing about the allegation that Walker sired an out-of-wedlock child? This bombshell and the counter-allegation that the first allegation had confused Scott Kevin Walker with another student ("Scott Alan Walker") came a few days before the recall election. Especially if the first allegation was perceived to be false, it may have evoked a backlash pushing Scott Kevin Walker's actual vote percentage higher than what polls had predicted. Rammer ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the reason for the number 540,208? Was that number just pulled out of the hat, or is there some legal basis for the number? Please answer (with references) in the article, of course. CountMacula ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph includes the following, "In total, more than $62 million has been spent by the candidates and outside groups.[4] Of the $30 million raised by Walker, much of it came from outside the state. About $4 million has been spent by Barrett, with most of his donors residing in Wisconsin.[4]" This comes from a USA Today Article. I think that the headline numbers are noteworthy, but the commentary raises significant POV issues as the words "much" is used to describe one candidates out-of-state funding and "most" used to describe another. Without hard totals, these values are speculative. Additionally, this is clearly designed to shine one candidate in a poorer light.
More seriously, this sentence is essentially a reworded copy of the USA Today article and is not quoted. The source USA Today article says, "More than $62 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. Much of the $30 million raised by Walker came from outside the state. Barrett has spent about $4 million; most of his donors live in Wisconsin." The editor using this quote simply moved words around. This is plagiarism--cut and dry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thequackdaddy ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There should be something about the millions of out of state money for Falk - as this is why Barrett had so little. Patriot1010 ( talk) 04:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I spent quite a bit of time looking at various news sources for what the results of the four state senate recall elections and Wikipedia was the first place i found that had the good sense to mention those important elections as well. Good coverage. 192.223.163.6 ( talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Trivedi received less than 1% of the vote and his vote total had no major affect on the election. I'm not sure what the criteria is, but he did not change the race like Nader and Perot in the 2000 and 1992 presidential elections. -- Southronite ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Are people that didn't run for election notable for the election? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous references about her role in the recall election.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Dakota gubernatorial recall election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How is this relevant to the recall election, exactly? In their private lives, these individuals are allowed to sign petitions. It seems to be that this suggests that the individuals who signed the petitions are biased, but there's no evidence to suggest that. If that's why it's there, then it's a subtle synthesis of existing information to a conclusion that noone has concluded, failing WP:V. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This story gained traction when Gannett Company journalists reported that several judges signed the recall petition. The implication from the news agency being that judges are supposed to be impartial and therefore ought not be signing the recall petitions. Then the Gannett Company acknowledged that it's own journalists have signed the recall petitions and will be taking disciplinary action regarding that because the company professes to be impartial. This is clearly in my view related to the recall election. I'm open to this being included in it's own section if someone thinks that perhaps it ought not belong in the background section. However, I do believe it belongs in the article and relevant to the recall election. Stylteralmaldo ( talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference [1] no longer works. You can do a search for the story and it comes up with a synopsis and offer to sell you a copy of the story. Only current stories are free. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing is, but if this is important to someone, you might want to look into it. Another-sailor ( talk) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I would say this information is relevant, because it demonstrates the Populism associated with a recall, specifically "populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process." Patriot1010 ( talk) 06:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone spell out how many people need to sign a petition in order to start a recall election? Why are there primaries? Most important, (and this is not a rhetorical question) please explain what protections there are against kicking out an elected official anytime that their approval rating drops below 50%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.48.162 ( talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
A select group of people continue to remove Gladys Huber's name from the Democratic Primary results. Regardless of your politics, this person is on the ballot, and should be listed. S51438 ( talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
For the third time, I will revert vandalism by an IP user. Time to block them? S51438 ( talk) 03:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
There's very little information about the general recall election. The date is mentioned at the top, but not in the section about the general election. It's not stated anywhere if there will be a separate question "Should Governor Walker be recalled from office?", as in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election or if obtaining the petitions means that the election is essentially run over again, with Walker eligible to run, and being "recalled" if he loses. Argyriou (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The recall election for lieutenant governor is completely separate from the gubernatorial recall. Therefore neither candidate has a running mate. If anything the lieutenant gubernatorial election should be its own page. -- 50.50.169.91 ( talk) 02:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This section draws conclusions about the numbers in the recall primary, but only sites a self-published blog. This should be removed, as Wikipedia is not supposed to draw conclusions, only report what is published in reliable sources. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC).
Not taking a firm position one way or another on inclusion of intrade, but here are a few refs dicussing intrade, directly in context of this election.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly articles for Prediction Markets, Intrade specifically
Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors?
Public Opin Q (2008) 72 (2): 190-215. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn010
Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien
Oxford Journals
The data of Prediction Markets, in which Intrade is not only mentioned numerous times in scholarly articles, the data and results of Intrade have been used in contemporary social science research.
A good summary of this as it relates to elections is:
"Recent successes in prediction markets, predicting both public events and corporate outcomes, have generated substantial interest among social scientists, policy makers and the business community. While these markets have their limitations, they may be useful as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future."
Which was found in: "Prediction markets for business and public policy", the Melbourne review Andrew Leigh and Justin Wolfers
Andrew Leigh is an economist in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Email: andrew.leigh@anu.edu.au. Website: http://econrsss.anu.edu. au/~aleigh/
Justin Wolfers is Assistant Professor of Business and Public Policy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Faculty Research Fellow with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Affiliate with the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a Visiting Scholar with San Francisco Federal Reserve and a Research Fellow with Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Email: jwolfers@wharton.upenn.edu. Web: www.nber.org/~jwolfers
These are just two quick searches of how Prediction Markets, specifically Intrade, is being used as the latter article pointed out - "as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future," namley election polling which more often than not has a bias depending on who is conducting the poll.
WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the most reliable form of source there is. Intrade data is used in research. Why should we omit this data for an election when it is present, publicly available, and widely used? The Prediction Market for this election, and the organization that collects and publishes this information has academic consensus WP:RS/AC, used widely by others WP:USEBYOTHERS, and is purely a neutral opinion with no bias, (unlike polling) WP:RSOPINION.
These are all hallmarks in Wikipedia's WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Censoring this data when it is so widely available and used, (and trusted) does not make sense. Patriot1010 ( talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
First, America69, how about we lay off the Ad hominem for this article?
A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here. However, I believe that any predictions, be they Intrade or professional firms, have no value in an encyclopedia as they add nothing to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Therefore, it should not be included. I believe that I am not in the majority on this (vis à vis predictions, in general), as it's just my opinion.— GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am an Administrator, and as such I have been asked to intervene to stop an edit war. Please do not revert other people edits so frequently just to prove a point. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Edit warring— GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is a betting game which is influenced by an unknown number of participants whose motivations are unknown included in an article that is intended to share real information about a real world event? This is silly. Start an Intrade article or a guessing game article and add all the Intrade guessing game stuff there. Please stop adding superfluous trash to an item that is trying to provide something close to actual information--not someone's juiced up imaginings. This really cheapens and discredits Wikipedia. We have agreed to exclude "partisan" polls--how do we know this isn't a hidden partisan ploy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyjohlc ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Patriot1010--did you actually read the Erikson & Wiezien (2008) article? From the abstract: " ... challenges the optimistic assessment of election markets ... when poll leads are properly discounted, poll-based forecasts outperform vote-share market prices." And then the Rothschild--another Wharton faculty member--(2009) article also from "Political Opinion Quarterly" says "... debiased market-based forecasts provide more accurate probabilities ... than debiased poll-based forecasts." OK, please explain to me the debiasing methods that have been used in interpreting the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall "market." Participants create the result they want simply by registering and naming the prices and number of shares they desire to trade--or do I misunderstand the game? I am not necessarily questioning the potential usefulness of Intrade methods but in this instance from what I can see it is operating as a prediction game, not a scientifically applied process.
garyjohlc
I'll add my 2 cents and vote NO on Intrade. I think that makes it 6-1 unless I am missing someone. To Patriot1010, at this point you are not helping your cause. Continually fighting with other editors when no one else is supporting your argument makes you look like a troll trying to stir up trouble rather than someone trying to make good edits. Incitatus13 ( talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My take is that if a polling section is appropriate, so is mention of intrade. Both are used for predicting an outcome, though their methodology differs. According to Charlie Cook and Paul Krugman, intrade is a decent way of measuring *conventional wisdom* with regards to the probability of some event. And Charlie Cook is highly skeptical of that tool, Krugman slightly less. Cite: http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-the-folly-of-crowds-20120517 Krugman: "Betting markets don’t have any mystical power, but they do summarize conventional wisdom pretty well..." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/health-care-resurrection/ I personally put somewhat more credence in these tools, since if the betting price veers too far off from fundamentals, rich profits are obtainable. Further thoughts: a) I guess "Predicting the 2012 Wisconsin Recall" could in theory have its own page, encompassing polling, expert opinion and prediction markets. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Measure for Measure ( talk) 05:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The information is sourced, and relevant. I am not sure that it must be included, but I am sure that those that are trying to say the information must not be included are misuing policy. In any case, the issue will be resolved in just a few days. Don't edit war over it. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Woe, guys, enough of the edit war. Seems like there is still a failure to agree on a consensus here. And for the record, from what I have noticed in other discussions Wikipedia likes to allow plenty of opportunity for discussion before declaring a consensus either way. I think you are both jumping the gun and declaring consensus is on your side. Let's scale it back and just let the process work out as this mediation appears to have been concluded just today from what I've seen. How about some form of a compromise? Anyway, from what I know about Intrade, doesn't the prediction change every couple of minutes based on what people are bidding? With a lack of any real time updating ability on this site, what is the value of having a table listing a value that an editor noticed during a specific visit to the site? I don't see the value of Intrade predictions, but maybe as a compromise have a line or two in the article stating that Intrade gave Walker a greater than 90% chance of winning, or something along those lines instead of devoting a table to it? I'll even go ahead and do the work of making the change and you can see if you approve, then if someone still doesn't like it just change it back. Incitatus13 ( talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool, looks like at least one side is willing to compromise, we're halfway there. Not sure what you mean by the sockpuppet comment, the only edits I see after mine are to endorsements unless I'm not seeing something, and it seems that anonymous IP editor has been working hard on those all night, lol. My compromise is only a rough skeleton, so feel free to improve it if it needs anything. Incitatus13 ( talk) 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Should election speculator and election predictor data be placed on Election Wiki pages?
Protaganists state (Should be included) because:
Antagonists state (Should not be included) because:
Talk page is located at the Talk:Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2012 talk page, under Intrade [ [5]] Patriot1010 ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
[moved RfC] Coastside ( talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Are snapshots of sourced and relevant Prediction Markets appropriate to add to election pages (separate, but following a poll section), to supplement Poll data? (Example Below)
Predictor | Date(s) administered |
Sample size |
Change | Scott Walker (R) |
Tom Barrett (D) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intrade | May 26, 2012 | 6165 | -3% | 87.4% | 12.6% |
Intrade | June 2, 2012 | 10,823 | +1.6% | 97.3% | 2.7% |
Patriot1010 ( talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some NPOV issues with the way that Arthur Kohl-Riggs, Walker's primary, opponent, is being described. No source has been provided to confirm that he is a regisisterd Democrat, or that he is not a registered Republican (he is being described as a "fake Republican"). Also, the description "political agitator" seems to be biased. FreakyDaGeeky14 ( talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move articles as proposed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
– I see little purpose to have the year at the end of these articles, as this is the first gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin's history, as also with the ones that happened in California and North Dakota. The titles should be kept as short and concise as possible. -- MuZemike 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please add explanation/legend of what LV, RV, and DV mean in the first opinion polls table. 204.210.242.157 ( talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Good working with you all, even those that disagreed. See you when the results are final. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The major news outlets have called it, but shouldn't (as voting is still coming in at this time) the article really reflect the status of the it being called once we've received full vote counts (unless a candidate has conceded)? Or something from when the department of state report it? Dtheweather9 ( talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does the article contain nothing about the allegation that Walker sired an out-of-wedlock child? This bombshell and the counter-allegation that the first allegation had confused Scott Kevin Walker with another student ("Scott Alan Walker") came a few days before the recall election. Especially if the first allegation was perceived to be false, it may have evoked a backlash pushing Scott Kevin Walker's actual vote percentage higher than what polls had predicted. Rammer ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the reason for the number 540,208? Was that number just pulled out of the hat, or is there some legal basis for the number? Please answer (with references) in the article, of course. CountMacula ( talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph includes the following, "In total, more than $62 million has been spent by the candidates and outside groups.[4] Of the $30 million raised by Walker, much of it came from outside the state. About $4 million has been spent by Barrett, with most of his donors residing in Wisconsin.[4]" This comes from a USA Today Article. I think that the headline numbers are noteworthy, but the commentary raises significant POV issues as the words "much" is used to describe one candidates out-of-state funding and "most" used to describe another. Without hard totals, these values are speculative. Additionally, this is clearly designed to shine one candidate in a poorer light.
More seriously, this sentence is essentially a reworded copy of the USA Today article and is not quoted. The source USA Today article says, "More than $62 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. Much of the $30 million raised by Walker came from outside the state. Barrett has spent about $4 million; most of his donors live in Wisconsin." The editor using this quote simply moved words around. This is plagiarism--cut and dry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thequackdaddy ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There should be something about the millions of out of state money for Falk - as this is why Barrett had so little. Patriot1010 ( talk) 04:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I spent quite a bit of time looking at various news sources for what the results of the four state senate recall elections and Wikipedia was the first place i found that had the good sense to mention those important elections as well. Good coverage. 192.223.163.6 ( talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Trivedi received less than 1% of the vote and his vote total had no major affect on the election. I'm not sure what the criteria is, but he did not change the race like Nader and Perot in the 2000 and 1992 presidential elections. -- Southronite ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Are people that didn't run for election notable for the election? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous references about her role in the recall election.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Dakota gubernatorial recall election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)