This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 January 2010. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc. |
Please do not remove losers or their data from this article.— Markles 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Mass law sets the date range for special elections for senators at 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs. Kennedy died on August 25, so there are seven days left in August 2009. There are 122 days among the last four months of the year for a total of 129. To get to 145, we need 16 more days, January 16. Of course January 31 is 15 days after that. Since the article originally said Jan. 17 to Feb. 1, I ask: how is my count wrong? - Rrius ( talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have pared down the "Ballot access" section, but I don't think it or the "Qualifications" section really need to be in the article. The ballot access section gives undue weight to the criterion for getting on the ballot. We already know from the "Election dates" section that there will be a primary, and there is little point in discussing how long a person must be registered as a party member before the filing deadline. The "Qualification" section just seems out of place unless an allegation comes up that one candidate or other doesn't meet the qualifications. - Rrius ( talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nominations of candidates for any offices to be filled at a state election may be made by nomination papers, stating the facts required by section eight and signed in the aggregate by not less than the following number of voters: for governor and lieutenant governor, attorney general, United States senator, and presidential electors, ten thousand;...
You guys must be trying to prove the adage that there's no matter too small to have an edit dispute over. Well, I shouldn't mock, I've found myself in a few of these as well ... I'd suggest a brief description of the ballot access requirements is in order, then everyone moves on to something more momentous ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Massachusetts General Court will be considering changes to the law: although the Republicans would prefer the status quo, they have relatively little clout in a state with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. One possibility would be to prepone the special election, possibly moving the election up to 2009. If that happens, we would have to change the name of this article. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As of 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Stephen Lynch is NOT an official candidate for the seat. He has simply pulled nomination papers. Unless there is objection, I will be returning his name to Potential Candidates. Alex ( talk) 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposals invited reorganizaing sections.
Should a campaign narrative section go underneath the rather large list of candidates (actual, declined, potential)? A bit hard to find there though.
Since the appointment issue so far, is hypothetical and contingent, and the election process has started and is a fact, the appointment sections could go at bottom. And yet that might all change in a few weeks if a law is passed.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, below all of the names for the next new section on the campaign and issues. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
57 different references and 35 repetitions. This is one well-researched article!— Markles 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The recent addition of an image gallery seems unnecessary to me. At the moment, we have images of two actual Democratic candidates and one potential one. There are also 10 Democratic non-candidates and 4 Republican non-candidates represented. There are no images of actual Republican candidates and only two of potential candidates. In addition to taking up a lot of space, this seems to give undue weight to people who aren't even running. Were the non-candidates eliminated, half the Democrats and all the Republicans actually running would be left out. - Rrius ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the extensive list of possible appointees. "... as relevant as potential candidates who didn't run"? It's of no significance that "Lois Pines, former State Senator" was considered a potential appointment. Dukakis was frequently mentioned and endorsed by a newspaper, so he should stay, the rest go, it's recentism. Hekerui ( talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Was this election for a full six year term or just a partial term and if so how long? Can't find this info anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.29.253 ( talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made a minor modification to remove the part of the sentence that states the purpose behind Kennedy's 2009 letter/request regarding the succession process. While Kennedy stated that his interest is in maintaining representation for Massachusetts, this is a matter that is widely disputed. In fact the article cited as a source starts with the assertion that Kennedy's purpose was to guarantee a vote for health care reform. Packetmonger ( talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
An article on this special election that mentions the interim appointment and the law-change that enabled it should not omit mention of the controversy about the hypocrisy of enacting one set of rules when the Governor is Republican, and another when the Governor is a Democrat. The controversy was part of the relevant history, and the article as it stands appears to implicitly condone this kind of political maneuvering. The Wikipedia article on "Gerrymandering," for instance, mentions that the term has "negative connotations." The legislative shimmy by which mostly the same people deprived Gov. Romney of the power of interim appointment and then restored it for Gov. Patrick, hasn't been immortalized with catchy name, but if it were, this name would have negative connotations. Bo8ob ( talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I moved Curt Schilling to the independent candidates section because he would have been precluded from running as a Republican because he is a registered independent.-- Mhenneberry ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Your source doesn't say that Schilling thought he would be running for the Republican nomination. What's more, it was reported within days of Kennedy's death that Schilling is a registered independent, so during the weeks that went by, he must have known that he would have to run as an independent. What's more, to figure your source is accurate, you are trying to hold sources to WP:SYNTH, which is a guideline dealing with what should and should not be written here, not what should be written in our sources. - Rrius ( talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Coakley insulted Schilling by calling him a New York Yankees fan. Since he pitched for the Boston Red Sox and the Philadelphia Phillies, he took umbrage for that. No, this doesn't need to go in the article, just a small point to smile or groan about. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the polling listed in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't it be listed from earliest to latest? I know other articles do this, but it doesn't make sense here or there. Is there a settled policy in a style guide or in a Wikiproject? — Markles 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Blue Mass is not an unbiased source; they openly have liberal ideology and anti Brown banners on their website. Can we really trust them to provide accurate facts on the results of the polls they conducted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.84.125 ( talk) 06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Would this poll - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/ - be advisable to include? It shares some of the same bias issues as the Blue Mass poll. Moogwrench ( talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of consistency in what standards will be used when deciding which polls to list.
Both the Blue Mass poll (which was done by Research 2000, a reputable pollster) and the Mellman poll were excluded on the basis that sources other than official releases by reputable pollsters, complete with crosstabs for objectivity's sake, weren't up to Wikipedia's standards.
However, the Pajamas Media poll (done by CrossTarget) is repeatedly replaced in the article, despite the only source being an article on a conservative news site. Until something more substantial be can be produced, the poll should remain off of the article, along with the other two.
William S Saturn, you have a history of partisan edit wars; please stay away from articles of substance if you can't control your political biases.-- Dr Fell ( talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think an endorsements section would be a good idea, and I'm kind of working on it. Only problem is, it'll likely be a scarily long list ( [5], [6]). Does anyone have any criteria by which the people listed could feasibly be narrowed down, or should I just try to list everybody? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The topic has a history, and progress, not able to be shown in an article that lacks a section called "campaign".
Here's an example, perhaps useful:
New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention in this article of the other candidate who appear on the ballot in January: Joe Kennedy from the Libertarian Party. Granted, his chances of winning are *very* slim, however, his name will be on the ballot, and as such, deserves to be mentioned in this article. 64.69.8.165 ( talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is somebody going to get a picture for him?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a wikipedia account and I am very unfamiliar with the system here, but here is a link with a picture of him as a state senator, which I'm pretty sure falls under public domain. http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/spb0.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 ( talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 11 Brown raised over $1 M via the Internet. I think that is relevant and material to the article indicating he had amassed broad support during the campaign.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would think Joe Kennedy needs to have his 'party' changed back from Independent to Liberty as that is the Ballot ticket he is running under - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.97.167 ( talk) 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is already a box saying Coakley has won 51 to 48? It's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb9000 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed it.. it was a vandal - Tracer9999 ( talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
For accuracies sake should we put Joe Kennedy as Liberty or Leave it as Independent ? -SirWence ( talk)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After much concern over Joseph L. Kennedy being included in the top infobox, I think a compromise should be agreed upon, in going forward into the election in a few days. Now, along with the issue of polling and support, there is also the concern of the infobox setup with three images. I have created a test infobox, that places the third candidate in a second row, and doesn't compromise the size of the images needing to be decreased greatly; you can see it at the right. Secondly, maybe a threshold should be established for this specific case in including Kennedy; for example, maybe if Kennedy polls higher than 10%, or at least 5% in three or more polls, then he would be added. And though I still oppose him being added at this present time, any thoughts on these two points? Gage ( talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
These statements are inaccurate: "Brown is running as both a fiscally and socially conservative Republican" vs "Coakley has positioned herself as an independently-minded liberal". Brown supported universal health-care legislation in Massachusetts, has voted for stem-cell research, and is Pro-Choice, and he's described himself as socially moderate and independent-minded (per his commercials). Coakley - Which issue(s) does she differ from the mainstream liberal/Democratic platform? The reference cited, a page from Martha Coakley's web site, does not state she's "independently minded" in anyway. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.150 ( talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to edit the main article to include the following. Approximately one week before the January 19th election a video tape was placed on youtube.com showing an altercation between a Coakley staffer named as Meehan and a report named McCormack outside a Washington DC gathering which Martha Coakley was leaving. The reporter, as well as several other reporters, asked Coakley a question on Terrorism and tried to follow the candidate down the street. The video apparently shows the staffer shoving the reporter into a construction fence, knocking the reporter down, and then blocking the reporter's access when the reporter attempted to follow Coakley down the street. This can be found on youtube.com under the heading "Martha Coakley thug instigates Assault on John McCormack" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beantownboyo ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this might be reworked into a paragraph focusing on a number of problems Coakley ran into in the final week of the campaign, including the identification of Curt Schilling as a Yankee icon, and her quip about no religious freedom in the emergency room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph written is badly worded. No where in the source does Coakley "blame" republican stalkers for causing the incident. She just says that she "thinks" republicans were stalking here at the time it happened. Also to note the guy who got shoved was a reporter not a republican stalker. And she says she does not know any of the details of what happened in that article. The paragraph either needs to be taken out or reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.245.135 ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
While Wikipedia isn;t a wire service, it seems a lot of major developments like endorsements from non-Boston newspapers, various labor unions, TV buys, possible visits on behalf of candidates et al simply aren't being kept up to date and will end up omitted from the article. The closed edits mean we must simply yell about this since we can't fix it ourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 01:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Brown's endorsement by various police unions, including Cambridge(fallout from the Gates incident?) , is relevant. Maybe boxes are needed for newspaper endorsements and labor/interest group/celebrity endorsments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is Coakley's name suddenly first? Alphabetical order being ignored now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 ( talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article ought to focus better on the "41st seat" national importance of this race, as well as the fact that it appears to be the most furiously contested MA senate election since the 1952 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have any requests for an image of this? I'll be at Northeastern for another three hours so I can get a pic of the crowds outside where Obama will speak if anyone thinks that would be necessary. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Scott Brown has also been endorsed by former New York Governor Rudy Giuliani... I saw it in a campaign video on his website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 ( talk) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Former Quarterback Doug Flutie has also endorsed Scott Brown; he campaigned for him at the People's Rally in Worcester along with Curt Schiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 ( talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the majority of the stuff in there is about Coakley and nothing or very little about Brown. This seems a little bit lopsided as there is more then one candidate here and all of them have done/said stupid things during this race. My suggestion is either A) find stuff on Brown or what I prefer B) remove the section entirely. Brothejr ( talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
well, the problem is.. that coakley has alot more controversy going on, given her career/judgement choices and position.. and they are all well cited... and most by major papers like the Boston herald..and we can't really just make up controversy for Scott Brown to try to balance it out.. that just isn't there. If you come up with some sourced ones.. feel free to add them.. but removing existing controversy thats sourced...just because we can't dig up the same amount of controversy on Brown.. is hardly a favorable option...but again, If you find some RELIABLY sourced material the points to a Brown controvery...by all means.. add it- Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then source them and add them.. thats my point. Noone is trying to keep out the controversy.. Im just having trouble finding it. The only thing I can come up with is him posing for cosmo semi nude 30 years ago when he was like 20.. hardly seems relevant to me.. the issue with coakley is her position is alot different then a state senator and way more public and under scruitny of the public eye.. A senator for the most part.. votes yes or no. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
ok.. see thats a start. Now find a ref thats not a blog, and not a youtube video (that is a whole 15 seconds of a whole interview). "blue mass" group pretty much explains there POV.. and would not be a valid source. just by the name.. your whorunsgov ref is a more in the direction you want to go. Im thinking boston herald , boston globe, any other newspaper... - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the 2005 issue of Coakley and the child-rape case. Info and sources can be found here: [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.116.140 ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the entire section should be removed. "Balancing" political activism with "equal and opposite" political activism is not the solution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. While several of Coakley's statements are verifiable facts, I question their relevance to the election itself. It seems to me that they are included to persuade, rather than inform. 75.66.101.77 ( talk) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To say that the controversies section should be removed is outrages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and suppose to present all of the facts. Many other election articles have controversies sections. Maybe some liberal editors out there don't won't to expose the controversies. I don't know, but it's insane to say the section should be removed.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy section should not be removed. Coakley has been a higher profile politician and has been prone to making gaffes on the campaign trail. Thus there are more articles that refer to her controversies. Boromir123 ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it ought to be removed. These kinds of low-level manufactured controversies are par for the course in elections; it's just that in this case, the national media is watching this race pretty closely, so the standard political chaff is getting a lot of attention. And, of course, the section is clearly biased against Coakley, in that it ignores all gaffes and missteps by the Brown campaign. EvanHarper ( talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should leave in the section but we have to exercise some judgment. Some of what EvanHarper rightly describes as low-level controversies are still worth including because they become a notable part of the mutual mudslinging, but that doesn't mean that we should throw in every media frenzy. I think that "Shovegate" should go because it doesn't directly involve either Coakley or Brown and is not intrinsically important. In the hurly-burly of a campaign, somebody getting shoved is about as nonnotable as you can get. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Material which is not directly related to the campaign will be removed. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
sourced controversy in her job performance / judgement.. is related to her campaign..removing sourced accurate information is a violation of wikipedia policy.. even if you make a short post on the talk page saying Im gonna do it.. get concensus please.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If reliable sources have cited the controversy, it should stay. Boromir123 ( talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversies section is a giant mess of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, among other things. As per Wikipedia rules, template is not to be removed until dispute is settled conclusively. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We are simply stating the facts as it is. There is significantly more controversy associated with the Coakley campaign and it has been more widely covered and scrutinized due to her greater time in the public eye. If its sourced properly by neutral sources (i.e. not partisan blogs), it should stay. Boromir123 ( talk) 00:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not restore irrelevant fringe candidates to this page. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Only include the three major candidates. Reywas92 Talk 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
All the candidates who were on the ballot should be included in the statewide table of totals. Plus any significant write-ins (if and when available), but not those who won only a few dozen votes. But they don't belong in the summary box at the top of the page (just not enough lateral space even for Kennedy). Kennedy was a significant figure in this race (because of his effect on the debates), and his vote exceeds the two-party margin in one large county. See, for comparison,
New York City mayoral election, 2009, which I worked on, on and off. The best way to show their marginality if they're marginal is to show how few votes they won.
—— Shakescene (
talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary to include a third candidate who got 1% of the vote, as something like that is...dare I say never seen in other election articles, and shouldn't be here.
Swarm
Talk 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to keep Kennedy in many places, because he's relevant to this race. And while I've almost always argued personally for staying allied with the Democrats in a two-party system like Massachusetts', I'm also partial to giving full treatment to third parties for a number of reasons. Had Kennedy won 3-4% of the vote, or even a lesser percentage that exceeded the winner's margin over the loser, I think there might have been a good argument for keeping him in the top infobox. But now the opinion polling and speculation is done, and the real returns are in, I just don't think 1% is enough to continue cluttering up that top box in this way. These boxes are rather too big to begin with, and a third picture is just too much. Perhaps there's a way of just indicating his 1% somewhere else in the same box. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's settle this. No matter how we feel about third parties and alternative candidates in general, or how many to list in a tabular statement of results, I think very few editors now that the returns are in, feel that the top information box has space to accommodate Joseph Kennedy's picture comfortably. But, of course, I could well be wrong. Let's see. Enter your comment and reasoning in the appopriate sub-sub-section below, preceded by "#" which will automatically indent and assign a number to your reply. —— Shakescene ( talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
County Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
File:010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts results map by municipality.svg Results by
municipality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to see what it would look like, I tried the information box with Kennedy's name and numbers but without his picture. I think the pictures (if available) of Kennedy, Pagliuca, Khazei and Jack E. Robinson should be in a gallery somewhere on the page, just not in the top info box. Technical quirks I don't understand impelled me to let (Independent) float without "Party name" or a "party color", but I don't see that as a significant drawback (after all, Independent isn't a party anyway; there's no Independent party convention, platform or state central committee.)
Enough uncommitted readers might be interested to see how well the third candidate did, and this answers that question rather emphatically. But there's no need to elevate his picture above that of the other also-rans.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
They're reporting town by town results, but the link is flaking out on me. I'll check back later, but I have no issue with those results being on a subpage or separate article. Doc Quintana ( talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doc, Try this site: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html Boromir123 ( talk) 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Detailed municipal election results seem very relevant to this topic, but I think readers would be better served with the 352-row table of municipal election results placed on a separate page. A prose summary of the results and reliable sources' analysis would be more appropriate. I propose moving the table currently in ' By municipality' to a new page titled ' List of municipal election results for the United States special election in Massachusetts, 2010'. It may be a mouth-full, but hopefully it will ameliorate the eyesore. What are others' thoughts? Emw ( talk) 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's Politics. Of course its going to get messy. Some (possibly) overly partisan guy/gal will edit something. Get his side of the story, we dont needd a war of flaming edits. 164.116.47.180 ( talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain further how the removal of a presumably nonpartisan resource is evidence of "blatant partisanship"? It seems to me that you're the one failing to assume good faith. External links in prose are generally frowned upon per WP:ELPOINTS; however, I doubt anyone will take issue with them in an external links section. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know the purpose of the "rank" column in the municipal results table? It seems pretty redundant to me. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get editors' opinions on whether the county results map or the municipal results map would be better to include in the infobox. I think the municipal results map -- which indicates not only the winner of the town or city but also the lopsidedness of the vote -- is better in both visual appeal and information content. Municipal results maps like the one currently in the article were featured on the front page of both the New York Times and the Boston Globe websites at the peak of their election results coverage. Given that we have a similar map, I don't see why we wouldn't feature it as prominently. Emw ( talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's interested, a very similar debate is taking place at Talk:New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009#Map. Responses would be appreciated. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that much what other election pages do, or what has been done in the past. We're still discussing whether to use county or municipality maps, with no consensus so far reached, so I object to one or two editors imposing their own view with threats of edit wars. —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Who was it that likened the Martha Coakley campaign with the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic?
The idea being of course that things did not go well for her and comparing it to the sinking of the Titanic or the crash of the Hindenburg just wasn't enough of a disaster all by themselves to describe her campaign. So he combined them together!
I thought that it was not only apt but also darn funny. But I don't know who to credit it with. I heard it on the radio. -- 69.37.91.1 ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The section on Keith Winfield contains some inaccuracies.
"In October 2005, Winfield, then working as a police officer, was accused of raping his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron."
According to the Commonwealth's expert, the rape occurred on October 12 or 13, 2005. Keith Winfield was not accused of the rape, however, until several months later. I know this because, when he first spoke with the police on November 7, 2005, he was not yet named as a suspect. If you cannot site a source that supports the quoted assertion, then it should be deleted.
"A Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Coakley investigated the case and did not take any actions."
I believe that this is supposed to state that the first grand jury did not indict Winfield. If so, reword it in this manner.
"She recommended about ten months after the indictment that Winfield be released, without bail."
Keith Winfield was not, at any point, arrested for this crime until after he was convicted. The quoted sentence makes it sound as if he was in custody for ten months. As it is misleading in this respect, it should be reworded. TXttx4xttXT ( talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 January 2010. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc. |
Please do not remove losers or their data from this article.— Markles 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Mass law sets the date range for special elections for senators at 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs. Kennedy died on August 25, so there are seven days left in August 2009. There are 122 days among the last four months of the year for a total of 129. To get to 145, we need 16 more days, January 16. Of course January 31 is 15 days after that. Since the article originally said Jan. 17 to Feb. 1, I ask: how is my count wrong? - Rrius ( talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have pared down the "Ballot access" section, but I don't think it or the "Qualifications" section really need to be in the article. The ballot access section gives undue weight to the criterion for getting on the ballot. We already know from the "Election dates" section that there will be a primary, and there is little point in discussing how long a person must be registered as a party member before the filing deadline. The "Qualification" section just seems out of place unless an allegation comes up that one candidate or other doesn't meet the qualifications. - Rrius ( talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nominations of candidates for any offices to be filled at a state election may be made by nomination papers, stating the facts required by section eight and signed in the aggregate by not less than the following number of voters: for governor and lieutenant governor, attorney general, United States senator, and presidential electors, ten thousand;...
You guys must be trying to prove the adage that there's no matter too small to have an edit dispute over. Well, I shouldn't mock, I've found myself in a few of these as well ... I'd suggest a brief description of the ballot access requirements is in order, then everyone moves on to something more momentous ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Massachusetts General Court will be considering changes to the law: although the Republicans would prefer the status quo, they have relatively little clout in a state with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. One possibility would be to prepone the special election, possibly moving the election up to 2009. If that happens, we would have to change the name of this article. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As of 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Stephen Lynch is NOT an official candidate for the seat. He has simply pulled nomination papers. Unless there is objection, I will be returning his name to Potential Candidates. Alex ( talk) 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposals invited reorganizaing sections.
Should a campaign narrative section go underneath the rather large list of candidates (actual, declined, potential)? A bit hard to find there though.
Since the appointment issue so far, is hypothetical and contingent, and the election process has started and is a fact, the appointment sections could go at bottom. And yet that might all change in a few weeks if a law is passed.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, below all of the names for the next new section on the campaign and issues. -- Yellowdesk ( talk) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
57 different references and 35 repetitions. This is one well-researched article!— Markles 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The recent addition of an image gallery seems unnecessary to me. At the moment, we have images of two actual Democratic candidates and one potential one. There are also 10 Democratic non-candidates and 4 Republican non-candidates represented. There are no images of actual Republican candidates and only two of potential candidates. In addition to taking up a lot of space, this seems to give undue weight to people who aren't even running. Were the non-candidates eliminated, half the Democrats and all the Republicans actually running would be left out. - Rrius ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the extensive list of possible appointees. "... as relevant as potential candidates who didn't run"? It's of no significance that "Lois Pines, former State Senator" was considered a potential appointment. Dukakis was frequently mentioned and endorsed by a newspaper, so he should stay, the rest go, it's recentism. Hekerui ( talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Was this election for a full six year term or just a partial term and if so how long? Can't find this info anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.29.253 ( talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made a minor modification to remove the part of the sentence that states the purpose behind Kennedy's 2009 letter/request regarding the succession process. While Kennedy stated that his interest is in maintaining representation for Massachusetts, this is a matter that is widely disputed. In fact the article cited as a source starts with the assertion that Kennedy's purpose was to guarantee a vote for health care reform. Packetmonger ( talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
An article on this special election that mentions the interim appointment and the law-change that enabled it should not omit mention of the controversy about the hypocrisy of enacting one set of rules when the Governor is Republican, and another when the Governor is a Democrat. The controversy was part of the relevant history, and the article as it stands appears to implicitly condone this kind of political maneuvering. The Wikipedia article on "Gerrymandering," for instance, mentions that the term has "negative connotations." The legislative shimmy by which mostly the same people deprived Gov. Romney of the power of interim appointment and then restored it for Gov. Patrick, hasn't been immortalized with catchy name, but if it were, this name would have negative connotations. Bo8ob ( talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I moved Curt Schilling to the independent candidates section because he would have been precluded from running as a Republican because he is a registered independent.-- Mhenneberry ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Your source doesn't say that Schilling thought he would be running for the Republican nomination. What's more, it was reported within days of Kennedy's death that Schilling is a registered independent, so during the weeks that went by, he must have known that he would have to run as an independent. What's more, to figure your source is accurate, you are trying to hold sources to WP:SYNTH, which is a guideline dealing with what should and should not be written here, not what should be written in our sources. - Rrius ( talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Coakley insulted Schilling by calling him a New York Yankees fan. Since he pitched for the Boston Red Sox and the Philadelphia Phillies, he took umbrage for that. No, this doesn't need to go in the article, just a small point to smile or groan about. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is the polling listed in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't it be listed from earliest to latest? I know other articles do this, but it doesn't make sense here or there. Is there a settled policy in a style guide or in a Wikiproject? — Markles 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Blue Mass is not an unbiased source; they openly have liberal ideology and anti Brown banners on their website. Can we really trust them to provide accurate facts on the results of the polls they conducted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.84.125 ( talk) 06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Would this poll - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/ - be advisable to include? It shares some of the same bias issues as the Blue Mass poll. Moogwrench ( talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of consistency in what standards will be used when deciding which polls to list.
Both the Blue Mass poll (which was done by Research 2000, a reputable pollster) and the Mellman poll were excluded on the basis that sources other than official releases by reputable pollsters, complete with crosstabs for objectivity's sake, weren't up to Wikipedia's standards.
However, the Pajamas Media poll (done by CrossTarget) is repeatedly replaced in the article, despite the only source being an article on a conservative news site. Until something more substantial be can be produced, the poll should remain off of the article, along with the other two.
William S Saturn, you have a history of partisan edit wars; please stay away from articles of substance if you can't control your political biases.-- Dr Fell ( talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think an endorsements section would be a good idea, and I'm kind of working on it. Only problem is, it'll likely be a scarily long list ( [5], [6]). Does anyone have any criteria by which the people listed could feasibly be narrowed down, or should I just try to list everybody? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The topic has a history, and progress, not able to be shown in an article that lacks a section called "campaign".
Here's an example, perhaps useful:
New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention in this article of the other candidate who appear on the ballot in January: Joe Kennedy from the Libertarian Party. Granted, his chances of winning are *very* slim, however, his name will be on the ballot, and as such, deserves to be mentioned in this article. 64.69.8.165 ( talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is somebody going to get a picture for him?-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a wikipedia account and I am very unfamiliar with the system here, but here is a link with a picture of him as a state senator, which I'm pretty sure falls under public domain. http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/spb0.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 ( talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 11 Brown raised over $1 M via the Internet. I think that is relevant and material to the article indicating he had amassed broad support during the campaign.
http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would think Joe Kennedy needs to have his 'party' changed back from Independent to Liberty as that is the Ballot ticket he is running under - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.97.167 ( talk) 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is already a box saying Coakley has won 51 to 48? It's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb9000 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed it.. it was a vandal - Tracer9999 ( talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
For accuracies sake should we put Joe Kennedy as Liberty or Leave it as Independent ? -SirWence ( talk)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After much concern over Joseph L. Kennedy being included in the top infobox, I think a compromise should be agreed upon, in going forward into the election in a few days. Now, along with the issue of polling and support, there is also the concern of the infobox setup with three images. I have created a test infobox, that places the third candidate in a second row, and doesn't compromise the size of the images needing to be decreased greatly; you can see it at the right. Secondly, maybe a threshold should be established for this specific case in including Kennedy; for example, maybe if Kennedy polls higher than 10%, or at least 5% in three or more polls, then he would be added. And though I still oppose him being added at this present time, any thoughts on these two points? Gage ( talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
These statements are inaccurate: "Brown is running as both a fiscally and socially conservative Republican" vs "Coakley has positioned herself as an independently-minded liberal". Brown supported universal health-care legislation in Massachusetts, has voted for stem-cell research, and is Pro-Choice, and he's described himself as socially moderate and independent-minded (per his commercials). Coakley - Which issue(s) does she differ from the mainstream liberal/Democratic platform? The reference cited, a page from Martha Coakley's web site, does not state she's "independently minded" in anyway. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.150 ( talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to edit the main article to include the following. Approximately one week before the January 19th election a video tape was placed on youtube.com showing an altercation between a Coakley staffer named as Meehan and a report named McCormack outside a Washington DC gathering which Martha Coakley was leaving. The reporter, as well as several other reporters, asked Coakley a question on Terrorism and tried to follow the candidate down the street. The video apparently shows the staffer shoving the reporter into a construction fence, knocking the reporter down, and then blocking the reporter's access when the reporter attempted to follow Coakley down the street. This can be found on youtube.com under the heading "Martha Coakley thug instigates Assault on John McCormack" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beantownboyo ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this might be reworked into a paragraph focusing on a number of problems Coakley ran into in the final week of the campaign, including the identification of Curt Schilling as a Yankee icon, and her quip about no religious freedom in the emergency room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph written is badly worded. No where in the source does Coakley "blame" republican stalkers for causing the incident. She just says that she "thinks" republicans were stalking here at the time it happened. Also to note the guy who got shoved was a reporter not a republican stalker. And she says she does not know any of the details of what happened in that article. The paragraph either needs to be taken out or reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.245.135 ( talk) 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
While Wikipedia isn;t a wire service, it seems a lot of major developments like endorsements from non-Boston newspapers, various labor unions, TV buys, possible visits on behalf of candidates et al simply aren't being kept up to date and will end up omitted from the article. The closed edits mean we must simply yell about this since we can't fix it ourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 01:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Brown's endorsement by various police unions, including Cambridge(fallout from the Gates incident?) , is relevant. Maybe boxes are needed for newspaper endorsements and labor/interest group/celebrity endorsments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is Coakley's name suddenly first? Alphabetical order being ignored now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 ( talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article ought to focus better on the "41st seat" national importance of this race, as well as the fact that it appears to be the most furiously contested MA senate election since the 1952 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 ( talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have any requests for an image of this? I'll be at Northeastern for another three hours so I can get a pic of the crowds outside where Obama will speak if anyone thinks that would be necessary. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Scott Brown has also been endorsed by former New York Governor Rudy Giuliani... I saw it in a campaign video on his website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 ( talk) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Former Quarterback Doug Flutie has also endorsed Scott Brown; he campaigned for him at the People's Rally in Worcester along with Curt Schiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 ( talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the majority of the stuff in there is about Coakley and nothing or very little about Brown. This seems a little bit lopsided as there is more then one candidate here and all of them have done/said stupid things during this race. My suggestion is either A) find stuff on Brown or what I prefer B) remove the section entirely. Brothejr ( talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
well, the problem is.. that coakley has alot more controversy going on, given her career/judgement choices and position.. and they are all well cited... and most by major papers like the Boston herald..and we can't really just make up controversy for Scott Brown to try to balance it out.. that just isn't there. If you come up with some sourced ones.. feel free to add them.. but removing existing controversy thats sourced...just because we can't dig up the same amount of controversy on Brown.. is hardly a favorable option...but again, If you find some RELIABLY sourced material the points to a Brown controvery...by all means.. add it- Tracer9999 ( talk) 02:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Then source them and add them.. thats my point. Noone is trying to keep out the controversy.. Im just having trouble finding it. The only thing I can come up with is him posing for cosmo semi nude 30 years ago when he was like 20.. hardly seems relevant to me.. the issue with coakley is her position is alot different then a state senator and way more public and under scruitny of the public eye.. A senator for the most part.. votes yes or no. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
ok.. see thats a start. Now find a ref thats not a blog, and not a youtube video (that is a whole 15 seconds of a whole interview). "blue mass" group pretty much explains there POV.. and would not be a valid source. just by the name.. your whorunsgov ref is a more in the direction you want to go. Im thinking boston herald , boston globe, any other newspaper... - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the 2005 issue of Coakley and the child-rape case. Info and sources can be found here: [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.116.140 ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the entire section should be removed. "Balancing" political activism with "equal and opposite" political activism is not the solution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. While several of Coakley's statements are verifiable facts, I question their relevance to the election itself. It seems to me that they are included to persuade, rather than inform. 75.66.101.77 ( talk) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
To say that the controversies section should be removed is outrages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and suppose to present all of the facts. Many other election articles have controversies sections. Maybe some liberal editors out there don't won't to expose the controversies. I don't know, but it's insane to say the section should be removed.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy section should not be removed. Coakley has been a higher profile politician and has been prone to making gaffes on the campaign trail. Thus there are more articles that refer to her controversies. Boromir123 ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it ought to be removed. These kinds of low-level manufactured controversies are par for the course in elections; it's just that in this case, the national media is watching this race pretty closely, so the standard political chaff is getting a lot of attention. And, of course, the section is clearly biased against Coakley, in that it ignores all gaffes and missteps by the Brown campaign. EvanHarper ( talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should leave in the section but we have to exercise some judgment. Some of what EvanHarper rightly describes as low-level controversies are still worth including because they become a notable part of the mutual mudslinging, but that doesn't mean that we should throw in every media frenzy. I think that "Shovegate" should go because it doesn't directly involve either Coakley or Brown and is not intrinsically important. In the hurly-burly of a campaign, somebody getting shoved is about as nonnotable as you can get. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Material which is not directly related to the campaign will be removed. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
sourced controversy in her job performance / judgement.. is related to her campaign..removing sourced accurate information is a violation of wikipedia policy.. even if you make a short post on the talk page saying Im gonna do it.. get concensus please.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If reliable sources have cited the controversy, it should stay. Boromir123 ( talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversies section is a giant mess of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, among other things. As per Wikipedia rules, template is not to be removed until dispute is settled conclusively. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We are simply stating the facts as it is. There is significantly more controversy associated with the Coakley campaign and it has been more widely covered and scrutinized due to her greater time in the public eye. If its sourced properly by neutral sources (i.e. not partisan blogs), it should stay. Boromir123 ( talk) 00:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not restore irrelevant fringe candidates to this page. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Only include the three major candidates. Reywas92 Talk 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
All the candidates who were on the ballot should be included in the statewide table of totals. Plus any significant write-ins (if and when available), but not those who won only a few dozen votes. But they don't belong in the summary box at the top of the page (just not enough lateral space even for Kennedy). Kennedy was a significant figure in this race (because of his effect on the debates), and his vote exceeds the two-party margin in one large county. See, for comparison,
New York City mayoral election, 2009, which I worked on, on and off. The best way to show their marginality if they're marginal is to show how few votes they won.
—— Shakescene (
talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary to include a third candidate who got 1% of the vote, as something like that is...dare I say never seen in other election articles, and shouldn't be here.
Swarm
Talk 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to keep Kennedy in many places, because he's relevant to this race. And while I've almost always argued personally for staying allied with the Democrats in a two-party system like Massachusetts', I'm also partial to giving full treatment to third parties for a number of reasons. Had Kennedy won 3-4% of the vote, or even a lesser percentage that exceeded the winner's margin over the loser, I think there might have been a good argument for keeping him in the top infobox. But now the opinion polling and speculation is done, and the real returns are in, I just don't think 1% is enough to continue cluttering up that top box in this way. These boxes are rather too big to begin with, and a third picture is just too much. Perhaps there's a way of just indicating his 1% somewhere else in the same box. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's settle this. No matter how we feel about third parties and alternative candidates in general, or how many to list in a tabular statement of results, I think very few editors now that the returns are in, feel that the top information box has space to accommodate Joseph Kennedy's picture comfortably. But, of course, I could well be wrong. Let's see. Enter your comment and reasoning in the appopriate sub-sub-section below, preceded by "#" which will automatically indent and assign a number to your reply. —— Shakescene ( talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
County Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
File:010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts results map by municipality.svg Results by
municipality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just to see what it would look like, I tried the information box with Kennedy's name and numbers but without his picture. I think the pictures (if available) of Kennedy, Pagliuca, Khazei and Jack E. Robinson should be in a gallery somewhere on the page, just not in the top info box. Technical quirks I don't understand impelled me to let (Independent) float without "Party name" or a "party color", but I don't see that as a significant drawback (after all, Independent isn't a party anyway; there's no Independent party convention, platform or state central committee.)
Enough uncommitted readers might be interested to see how well the third candidate did, and this answers that question rather emphatically. But there's no need to elevate his picture above that of the other also-rans.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
They're reporting town by town results, but the link is flaking out on me. I'll check back later, but I have no issue with those results being on a subpage or separate article. Doc Quintana ( talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doc, Try this site: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html Boromir123 ( talk) 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Detailed municipal election results seem very relevant to this topic, but I think readers would be better served with the 352-row table of municipal election results placed on a separate page. A prose summary of the results and reliable sources' analysis would be more appropriate. I propose moving the table currently in ' By municipality' to a new page titled ' List of municipal election results for the United States special election in Massachusetts, 2010'. It may be a mouth-full, but hopefully it will ameliorate the eyesore. What are others' thoughts? Emw ( talk) 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's Politics. Of course its going to get messy. Some (possibly) overly partisan guy/gal will edit something. Get his side of the story, we dont needd a war of flaming edits. 164.116.47.180 ( talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain further how the removal of a presumably nonpartisan resource is evidence of "blatant partisanship"? It seems to me that you're the one failing to assume good faith. External links in prose are generally frowned upon per WP:ELPOINTS; however, I doubt anyone will take issue with them in an external links section. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know the purpose of the "rank" column in the municipal results table? It seems pretty redundant to me. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get editors' opinions on whether the county results map or the municipal results map would be better to include in the infobox. I think the municipal results map -- which indicates not only the winner of the town or city but also the lopsidedness of the vote -- is better in both visual appeal and information content. Municipal results maps like the one currently in the article were featured on the front page of both the New York Times and the Boston Globe websites at the peak of their election results coverage. Given that we have a similar map, I don't see why we wouldn't feature it as prominently. Emw ( talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's interested, a very similar debate is taking place at Talk:New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009#Map. Responses would be appreciated. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care that much what other election pages do, or what has been done in the past. We're still discussing whether to use county or municipality maps, with no consensus so far reached, so I object to one or two editors imposing their own view with threats of edit wars. —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Who was it that likened the Martha Coakley campaign with the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic?
The idea being of course that things did not go well for her and comparing it to the sinking of the Titanic or the crash of the Hindenburg just wasn't enough of a disaster all by themselves to describe her campaign. So he combined them together!
I thought that it was not only apt but also darn funny. But I don't know who to credit it with. I heard it on the radio. -- 69.37.91.1 ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The section on Keith Winfield contains some inaccuracies.
"In October 2005, Winfield, then working as a police officer, was accused of raping his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron."
According to the Commonwealth's expert, the rape occurred on October 12 or 13, 2005. Keith Winfield was not accused of the rape, however, until several months later. I know this because, when he first spoke with the police on November 7, 2005, he was not yet named as a suspect. If you cannot site a source that supports the quoted assertion, then it should be deleted.
"A Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Coakley investigated the case and did not take any actions."
I believe that this is supposed to state that the first grand jury did not indict Winfield. If so, reword it in this manner.
"She recommended about ten months after the indictment that Winfield be released, without bail."
Keith Winfield was not, at any point, arrested for this crime until after he was convicted. The quoted sentence makes it sound as if he was in custody for ten months. As it is misleading in this respect, it should be reworded. TXttx4xttXT ( talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)