![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Landslide victory was copied or moved into List of claimed landslide victories on 00:46, 9 July 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
What about Republican Warren G. Harding, who was elected in a landslide in the US (1920). "Harding won in a massive landslide, pulling over 7 million more votes than Cox." See http://millercenter.org/president/biography/harding-campaigns-and-elections. According to another link, Warren G. Harding won 404 out of 531 electoral votes. Karin D. E. Everett ( talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Are the words in bold in there for a purpose? I don`t believe I have ever seen anything like this one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.14.15 ( talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
In what respect is Tony Blair's 1997 landslide the largest in the 20th century?
49.200.119.124 ( talk) 13:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the article, "The Liberal Party's increase of 148 seats from the previous election was the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election....Prior to the campaign, the Liberals had held only 36 seats—the fewest seats ever held at dissolution by any federal party that won the following election." If that doesn't count as a landslide, I don't know what does. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The LPC won with 8% more of the vote (39%) than the next party, and holds 14 seats above the 170 seats majority (54% of seats, 184/340). It's by no measure a landslide. There is no mention of a landslide either on the Wiki page of that election either. The 2011 election actually produced a stronger lead by the CPC (9%) and about the same seat %age (53.5%, 166/310). There's no reason why it should be included, it's just a regular election that produced a majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 ( talk) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The two results from the 1950s were for West Germany. In an article of this kind I think the distinction important. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Elections in Barbados in 2018 resulted in the opposing Barbados Labour Party to secure all 30 seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.231.127.195 ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
At some point, this article was allowed to balloon into a huge collection of original research. The list of landslide victories article was deleted here for a reason: it is a term with various possible definitions, cannot be defined for encyclopedic purposes, and leads to all the OR here (in the Australian section, for example, there were several results that I wouldn't call a landslide, but what criteria were we using? Someone had randomly decided for themselves). Frickeg ( talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the elections for US governors belong in this article, going by the introduction: The term is often incorrectly used to indicate a lopsided victory in which one side has a large majority, but it is not associated with a change in the political landscape. If we're using 'landslide victory' in that looser sense of 'a big win', then OK; but it seems to me it should be limited to elections of major significance and with considerable geographic scope, which basically means national results only. Robofish ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that the article is correct, a landslide is different than a lopsided victory because a landslide indicates a change in the political landscape. Therefore, sequential elections for the same person cannot be a landslide. The landscape shifted for the first election. The rest of the following elections show that the landscape is still shifted - not shifting or changing. Correct? So, in order to trim this ever-growing list, we can easily remove subsequential elections for the same person. For example, I removed Reagan's second election, even though I doubt his win over Carter had anything to do with a shifting political landscape. Carter won by beating Nixon (who wasn't even running) and then lost to Reagan. 135.84.167.41 ( talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any consensus on exactly how large a swing, or how large a majority, is needed before the term landslide can be used? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 23:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose that sections of the page to be split into a separate page called List of Landslide victory by nation. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page (note: yes, i copy them from WP:SPLIT. But that doesn't matter).
125.167.115.222 ( talk) 05:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have boldly deleted all the lists on this page. Most of them did not even claim to be using any criteria, and almost none of them were cited, thus they were entirely original research. A list must, by definition, have some kind of criteria for inclusion, and those criteria must be more specific than "X won this election pretty easily". Frickeg ( talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Czello, I saw that you seemed to approve of my cut, so I thought I'd document this on the talk page, where others have made similar comments already. In short: "landslide victory" is very poorly defined, and I think editors like Frickeg, Robofish, Robin S. Taylor, NDfan173, SecretName101, and Ziko have expressed the same doubts. Even "according to reliable sources" is a bit difficult, esp. in local coverage. But, User:Ahmadiskandarshah, it should be clear that the huge chunk of unverified information I removed just can't be reinstated without any work being done on it.
Two problems: lack of definition, lack of evidence. The overarching problem: why should "Landslide victory" contain a huge list of things called "landslide victory"? It's what's wrong with many articles: trivial aggregation, and I look in vain for a mention of all governments in world history in the article Government--confusing an explanation with a list leads to poor articles. Drmies ( talk) 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Landslide victory was copied or moved into List of claimed landslide victories on 00:46, 9 July 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
What about Republican Warren G. Harding, who was elected in a landslide in the US (1920). "Harding won in a massive landslide, pulling over 7 million more votes than Cox." See http://millercenter.org/president/biography/harding-campaigns-and-elections. According to another link, Warren G. Harding won 404 out of 531 electoral votes. Karin D. E. Everett ( talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Are the words in bold in there for a purpose? I don`t believe I have ever seen anything like this one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.14.15 ( talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
In what respect is Tony Blair's 1997 landslide the largest in the 20th century?
49.200.119.124 ( talk) 13:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Per the article, "The Liberal Party's increase of 148 seats from the previous election was the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election....Prior to the campaign, the Liberals had held only 36 seats—the fewest seats ever held at dissolution by any federal party that won the following election." If that doesn't count as a landslide, I don't know what does. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The LPC won with 8% more of the vote (39%) than the next party, and holds 14 seats above the 170 seats majority (54% of seats, 184/340). It's by no measure a landslide. There is no mention of a landslide either on the Wiki page of that election either. The 2011 election actually produced a stronger lead by the CPC (9%) and about the same seat %age (53.5%, 166/310). There's no reason why it should be included, it's just a regular election that produced a majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 ( talk) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The two results from the 1950s were for West Germany. In an article of this kind I think the distinction important. 84.3.187.196 ( talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Elections in Barbados in 2018 resulted in the opposing Barbados Labour Party to secure all 30 seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.231.127.195 ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
At some point, this article was allowed to balloon into a huge collection of original research. The list of landslide victories article was deleted here for a reason: it is a term with various possible definitions, cannot be defined for encyclopedic purposes, and leads to all the OR here (in the Australian section, for example, there were several results that I wouldn't call a landslide, but what criteria were we using? Someone had randomly decided for themselves). Frickeg ( talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the elections for US governors belong in this article, going by the introduction: The term is often incorrectly used to indicate a lopsided victory in which one side has a large majority, but it is not associated with a change in the political landscape. If we're using 'landslide victory' in that looser sense of 'a big win', then OK; but it seems to me it should be limited to elections of major significance and with considerable geographic scope, which basically means national results only. Robofish ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Assuming that the article is correct, a landslide is different than a lopsided victory because a landslide indicates a change in the political landscape. Therefore, sequential elections for the same person cannot be a landslide. The landscape shifted for the first election. The rest of the following elections show that the landscape is still shifted - not shifting or changing. Correct? So, in order to trim this ever-growing list, we can easily remove subsequential elections for the same person. For example, I removed Reagan's second election, even though I doubt his win over Carter had anything to do with a shifting political landscape. Carter won by beating Nixon (who wasn't even running) and then lost to Reagan. 135.84.167.41 ( talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any consensus on exactly how large a swing, or how large a majority, is needed before the term landslide can be used? Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 23:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose that sections of the page to be split into a separate page called List of Landslide victory by nation. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page (note: yes, i copy them from WP:SPLIT. But that doesn't matter).
125.167.115.222 ( talk) 05:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I have boldly deleted all the lists on this page. Most of them did not even claim to be using any criteria, and almost none of them were cited, thus they were entirely original research. A list must, by definition, have some kind of criteria for inclusion, and those criteria must be more specific than "X won this election pretty easily". Frickeg ( talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Czello, I saw that you seemed to approve of my cut, so I thought I'd document this on the talk page, where others have made similar comments already. In short: "landslide victory" is very poorly defined, and I think editors like Frickeg, Robofish, Robin S. Taylor, NDfan173, SecretName101, and Ziko have expressed the same doubts. Even "according to reliable sources" is a bit difficult, esp. in local coverage. But, User:Ahmadiskandarshah, it should be clear that the huge chunk of unverified information I removed just can't be reinstated without any work being done on it.
Two problems: lack of definition, lack of evidence. The overarching problem: why should "Landslide victory" contain a huge list of things called "landslide victory"? It's what's wrong with many articles: trivial aggregation, and I look in vain for a mention of all governments in world history in the article Government--confusing an explanation with a list leads to poor articles. Drmies ( talk) 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)