2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 22, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Question: Should the polling list in chronological order? Please add your opinion to reach consensus. — GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Reverse order makes no sense. There's no purpose in seeing it in reverse order when other information on this page is in forward order. Just because it's wrong on other pages doesn't mean it should be wrong here.— GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
In some articles, I've noticed other things in reverse chronological order, too. E.g.: California's 15th congressional district#Voting. Can we devise a standard?— GoldRingChip 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't think it's appropriate to change the order of the polls here from how every other article (20+ articles in the 2012 Senate category alone) does polling order. If you want to change the way we do things, you should try to get some broader consensus. Perhaps take it to the Politics WikiProject page or leave notes linking back here on some of the other more heavily-trafficked articles. johnpseudo 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with johnpseudo. I can't even find one example of people listing polls in chronological order. It doesn't happen. This has broad consensus across all of Wikipedia and the rest of the web. It seems as though you are left totally without a valid argument. Respectfully, Light-jet pilot ( talk) 21:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this old chestnut again. The fact is, almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top. It's only in the odd page, like this one, that some editors go against the consensus and put the most recent polls at the bottom. To be honest, it's not really something worth arguing and debating over. 99% of pages do it one way, which is easier to read and also to update and there's the 1% of pages that don't. If editors want to make a proposal, they are welcome to but I just don't see the point. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"Everybody else does it" is not consensus. "Everybody, once informed and discussed, agrees" is. For the third time, I ask you to post a discussion at a more broadly-read place. I've allowed you to phrase it yourself, thereby letting you phrase the question in your own way. I've advised you on where to cross-post it. I think this is a very emotional issue for you (out-of-chronological-order) editors, so I've let you control the debate. But until you give me either a logical reason or a consensus reason, I can't learn why we should post a chronological list in reverse chronological order.— GoldRingChip 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just responding from the post left @ WPUS. Without reading the long string above, why can't we just make the table sortable? Then the reader could sort it how they want rather than how we think it should be built? Kumioko ( talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2012, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003.
Yes. The narrative of most WP election articles and politicians' blps follows a chronological order in general. Most non-specialist readers and new editors would reasonably expect the polling section to follow the same pattern as the rest of the article of which it is a part. The claims that "almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top" and "the problem here is that no ordinary editor here adds polls, it's done only by real-life pollsters" are simply wrong — depending on how "features" is defined (does it mean any articles that include several polls conducted at different time points?). It may be that the majority of elections articles that include poll data do follow reverse chronological order (I do not know), but if so, there are still a significant minority of articles describing high-profile candidates and races that do not. In fact, had I not seen the notice of this debate on one of the elections & referenda projects pages, I would not have realized that this is even an issue of concern for some editors. A few pages I have recently read or edited that have not been following a strict reverse chronological order in the polls section include Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012; Florida gubernatorial election, 2010; Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012; Governorship of Mitt Romney (not an election article, but still a list of several polls is included in a chart). In these cases, each article's edits seem to have been made by a variety wikipedians, editors who apparently are not professional pollsters (although I have no way of knowing that). The polls sections in these cases also contain relatively few data points and seem to lack the gloss and polish that you will find in the more comprehensive charts, such as at Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. My sense is that when an article's polls sections is tended by experienced editors who are familiar with and prefer the reverse-chronological pattern, the polls section will be kept in reverse-chronological order; but when the editors who are contributing are not familiar with that convention, such as is usually the case with newer or infrequent editors, the result is more likely to be a natural outgrowth of the narrative chronological order that already characterizes the rest of the article (assuming it's not a polls-only article). The exception to the latter situation would be when a large number of polls is being added at some time removed from when most of the polls were conducted, in which case the editors are more likely to have the convenience of relying on a ready-made collection of polls in a single or handful of sources (eg, in the US, realclearpolitics.com), in which the polls are already listed in reverse-chronological order; in that case, it's less work to simply copy the polls from the source(s) to the WP article than to reverse the order to the (forward) chronological.
I think the sortable-table idea is definitely worth considering, but (in the software's current configuration) it would make edits harder for new or infrequent editors. Rules that make editing harder are a barrier to the growth of wikipedia. The threshold for adoption of such rules should be that the clarity that results from the rules outweighs the loss of contributions by editors who are intimidated by the rule requirements. I'm not sure that that threshold would be met for cases in which there are only a few polls to deal with. (Although the goal of a sortable table would be great as a guideline for high-profile elections with many data points.)
As for the suggestion that polls be listed chronologically until the conclusion of the election, then switched to reverse-chronological thereafter, this could work out, but would require a bit of extra work. It would also be likely to result in a number of lower-profile articles tending to be indefinitely left out of compliance with the formal standard. (Could a script that would switch the data be written to help out?) A related but broader question is Should the polls sections of all WP articles on politicians (not just elections articles) be written in reverse-chronological order? It would be somewhat confusing to adopt a standard that applied only to elections articles, since polls sections are not limited to elections articles. Dezastru ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are my five cents. The latter three provide for illustration three articles where I have worked heavily.
The last doesn't add anything new, so please consider 4.1 one of my five cents. -- P64 ( talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Came here from WikiProject U.S. Congress; perhaps a compromise? 'Most recent polls' at top and 'Other polls' chronological thereafter? Barring a compromise I'll note Wikipedia has made exceptions for other 'industry-wide standards' (see WikiProject Birds, naming), and note we a) provide introduction summaries, normally listing current position without (German language waiting 100 words for the verb). b) Most recent polls could easily be a separate section, available from the Contents table, whether it's above or below. Dru of Id ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of listing the endorsements? The Republicans are going to endorse the Republican and likewise the Democrats. Hardly worthy of noting in an encyclopedia.— GoldRingChip 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
How dare you take out the endorsement page it adds a lot to the article it is legitimate info well cited and the brown page included a lot of democratic endorsements as well as senator snowe who generally doesn't endorse in out state races anyway I worked hard on that page and am reinstating it immediately Cotton Rogers ( talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Also included celebrity endorsement of Dave Cowens and we have an endorsement page for the general presidential election why not delete that too. also democrats endorsed brown and that is worth noting anyway do not re-delete or I will report it as vandalism Cotton Rogers ( talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The Democratic primary is contested in name - but by that argument so is the current presidential republican nomination. Can someone explain why we can't put the presumptive nominee up? Hipocrite ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite empty, please help around ! Positive proposals, attacks on the other side, budget. Yug (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps pasting an old version of Elizabeth_Warren#Cherokee_self-identification into the 'General_election_campaign' section of this article. This violates WP:COATRACK. If it doesn't belong in the section about her senate run in the article on Elizabeth Warren, it certainly doesn't belong here. Will the person doing this please stop. FurrySings ( talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Put it in the Elizabeth Warren article if you can. If you can't it certainly doesn't belong here. This is a BLP violation, and I will continue to treat it as such. Stop your politically biased editing. FurrySings ( talk) 05:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This Article reports on the election. Early on, Warren made a series of unforced mis-statements to the press, and raised questions about whether she had ever taken advantage of what has turned out to be a false family narrative. This dominated the airwaves in the only market that counts, the State. It has attracted more attention than any economic policy or campaign ad. For a time, neither Warren nor Brown could appear in public without being dogged by questions about the false Indian narrative, and both avoided the question, Brown successfully, Warren, not so much. This article CANNOT be considered NPOV WITHOUT an extensive section on the controversy, whether you "Like" it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKE) or not. It does not matter if it is a substantive issue or not, Wikipedia does not care, nor is it edited to conform to a person's "likes".
The Rationale given for CONDENSING the story on the Elizabeth Warren page was that it overshadowed her much longer academic career, and that WP:UNDUE applied, since the Senate Campaign was a short part of her personal narrative. Not sure that was appropriate, since the Campaign is also the most notable, but that matters little. We are now speaking of the ELECTION CAMPAIGN, and the most reported story of THE CAMPAIGN has to be there, and must be MUCH longer than lists of not-candidates, obscure polls far removed from the election, and comments on comments by obscure CEOs or Missouri pols. WP:COATRACK is just ridiculous.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As he is at last check on the ballot for the November election for said senate seat in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate election (running as an independent Campaign Page) should he not at least be mentioned and or noted and at least put in the 'Results' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.7 ( talk) 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Deadline for completion of filing for a Non-Party, or Independent Candidate is Aug 28, so the lack of an update on the Secretary of State site may not imply the negative (they haven't posted Primary results either). [ [4]] is marginal as a WP:RS, but the Patriot Ledger definitely qualifies,[ [5]] though it only announces his INTENTION to join race, not if he qualified to be on the ballot. Good luck, good catch.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is disagreement about the extent to which Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee self-identification should be discussed in this article. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Need a section on Fundraising, and the pact between Brown and Warren to donate to charity any money spent on their behalf by Super-PACs. Might mention (a subject of much discussion) that most of Warren's money comes from OUTSIDE of the State, Brown's from WITHIN, and that BOTH take a lot from Financial companies.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so we all understand: Not a single vote in this election will be changed by this Wikipedia article. The election will not be affected by this article. Anyone seeking to help Brown or Warren should hold signs, canvass supporters, or work the phones. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a newspaper, democracy, or battleground. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article may be time-sensitive, but it is intended to endure for the ages. Imagine what this article should look like in 1, 10, or 50 years. So let's all not get bogged down in the minutiae of he-said-she-said, thinking it might somehow help a candidate. It won't. This is a book — a history — that's being written for the future. Let's make it something for which we can all be proud.— GoldRingChip 22:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the Predicted rankings section because the ones posted were taken very recently, and gave undue security to the Warren campaign. When the race first began, many were Tossup to Leans R, but the ones up made it appear that this election was a safe Democrat win. Unless all predicted rankings for this race can be complied, I feel they should be kept out, in place of polling which more accurately shows the progress of the race and campaigns. I would also like to point out that very few other election articles have predicted ranking sections. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Every senate, gubernatorial, congressional and even mayoral election page uses exactly the same polling table, except for one single senate election page: this one. I propose that it is changed to bring it into line with all the others. I changed it myself but GoldRingChip objected. I don't see there's any reason for keeping this one as the odd one out but some might disagree. Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article, can't wait! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
All in all, the article is pretty good, but there are some spots that could use improvement. I'll leave the GA review open for seven days. Lemme know if you have any questions! :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, any update on this? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Varnent ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Well written - no obvious copyedits found. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | Complies with MoS. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Covers the election thoroughly. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | Aftermath section has potential to become a problem - but for now seems fine. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Appears stable and appropriate edits made following first GA nomination | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | Appears to meet the GA criteria and notes from first GA nomination were followed well. |
Please add any related discussion here.
I just moved a bunch of material from the Warren page that should be here, as this is the main page on the election. I am just moving it, not endorsing it. People should edit as they see fit to make the material fit the page. Darx9url ( talk) 06:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 01:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 02:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kimballpoliticalconsulting.com/KPC_MA_Statewide_October18_21.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://assets.wnec.edu/112/SenatePressReleaseTables_03_14_11.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 22, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Question: Should the polling list in chronological order? Please add your opinion to reach consensus. — GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Reverse order makes no sense. There's no purpose in seeing it in reverse order when other information on this page is in forward order. Just because it's wrong on other pages doesn't mean it should be wrong here.— GoldRingChip 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
In some articles, I've noticed other things in reverse chronological order, too. E.g.: California's 15th congressional district#Voting. Can we devise a standard?— GoldRingChip 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't think it's appropriate to change the order of the polls here from how every other article (20+ articles in the 2012 Senate category alone) does polling order. If you want to change the way we do things, you should try to get some broader consensus. Perhaps take it to the Politics WikiProject page or leave notes linking back here on some of the other more heavily-trafficked articles. johnpseudo 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with johnpseudo. I can't even find one example of people listing polls in chronological order. It doesn't happen. This has broad consensus across all of Wikipedia and the rest of the web. It seems as though you are left totally without a valid argument. Respectfully, Light-jet pilot ( talk) 21:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this old chestnut again. The fact is, almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top. It's only in the odd page, like this one, that some editors go against the consensus and put the most recent polls at the bottom. To be honest, it's not really something worth arguing and debating over. 99% of pages do it one way, which is easier to read and also to update and there's the 1% of pages that don't. If editors want to make a proposal, they are welcome to but I just don't see the point. Tiller54 ( talk) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"Everybody else does it" is not consensus. "Everybody, once informed and discussed, agrees" is. For the third time, I ask you to post a discussion at a more broadly-read place. I've allowed you to phrase it yourself, thereby letting you phrase the question in your own way. I've advised you on where to cross-post it. I think this is a very emotional issue for you (out-of-chronological-order) editors, so I've let you control the debate. But until you give me either a logical reason or a consensus reason, I can't learn why we should post a chronological list in reverse chronological order.— GoldRingChip 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just responding from the post left @ WPUS. Without reading the long string above, why can't we just make the table sortable? Then the reader could sort it how they want rather than how we think it should be built? Kumioko ( talk) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2012, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003.
Yes. The narrative of most WP election articles and politicians' blps follows a chronological order in general. Most non-specialist readers and new editors would reasonably expect the polling section to follow the same pattern as the rest of the article of which it is a part. The claims that "almost every single page that features polling, whether it's in the US or the UK or Canada etc has the most recent poll at the top" and "the problem here is that no ordinary editor here adds polls, it's done only by real-life pollsters" are simply wrong — depending on how "features" is defined (does it mean any articles that include several polls conducted at different time points?). It may be that the majority of elections articles that include poll data do follow reverse chronological order (I do not know), but if so, there are still a significant minority of articles describing high-profile candidates and races that do not. In fact, had I not seen the notice of this debate on one of the elections & referenda projects pages, I would not have realized that this is even an issue of concern for some editors. A few pages I have recently read or edited that have not been following a strict reverse chronological order in the polls section include Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012; Florida gubernatorial election, 2010; Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012; Governorship of Mitt Romney (not an election article, but still a list of several polls is included in a chart). In these cases, each article's edits seem to have been made by a variety wikipedians, editors who apparently are not professional pollsters (although I have no way of knowing that). The polls sections in these cases also contain relatively few data points and seem to lack the gloss and polish that you will find in the more comprehensive charts, such as at Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. My sense is that when an article's polls sections is tended by experienced editors who are familiar with and prefer the reverse-chronological pattern, the polls section will be kept in reverse-chronological order; but when the editors who are contributing are not familiar with that convention, such as is usually the case with newer or infrequent editors, the result is more likely to be a natural outgrowth of the narrative chronological order that already characterizes the rest of the article (assuming it's not a polls-only article). The exception to the latter situation would be when a large number of polls is being added at some time removed from when most of the polls were conducted, in which case the editors are more likely to have the convenience of relying on a ready-made collection of polls in a single or handful of sources (eg, in the US, realclearpolitics.com), in which the polls are already listed in reverse-chronological order; in that case, it's less work to simply copy the polls from the source(s) to the WP article than to reverse the order to the (forward) chronological.
I think the sortable-table idea is definitely worth considering, but (in the software's current configuration) it would make edits harder for new or infrequent editors. Rules that make editing harder are a barrier to the growth of wikipedia. The threshold for adoption of such rules should be that the clarity that results from the rules outweighs the loss of contributions by editors who are intimidated by the rule requirements. I'm not sure that that threshold would be met for cases in which there are only a few polls to deal with. (Although the goal of a sortable table would be great as a guideline for high-profile elections with many data points.)
As for the suggestion that polls be listed chronologically until the conclusion of the election, then switched to reverse-chronological thereafter, this could work out, but would require a bit of extra work. It would also be likely to result in a number of lower-profile articles tending to be indefinitely left out of compliance with the formal standard. (Could a script that would switch the data be written to help out?) A related but broader question is Should the polls sections of all WP articles on politicians (not just elections articles) be written in reverse-chronological order? It would be somewhat confusing to adopt a standard that applied only to elections articles, since polls sections are not limited to elections articles. Dezastru ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are my five cents. The latter three provide for illustration three articles where I have worked heavily.
The last doesn't add anything new, so please consider 4.1 one of my five cents. -- P64 ( talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Came here from WikiProject U.S. Congress; perhaps a compromise? 'Most recent polls' at top and 'Other polls' chronological thereafter? Barring a compromise I'll note Wikipedia has made exceptions for other 'industry-wide standards' (see WikiProject Birds, naming), and note we a) provide introduction summaries, normally listing current position without (German language waiting 100 words for the verb). b) Most recent polls could easily be a separate section, available from the Contents table, whether it's above or below. Dru of Id ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of listing the endorsements? The Republicans are going to endorse the Republican and likewise the Democrats. Hardly worthy of noting in an encyclopedia.— GoldRingChip 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
How dare you take out the endorsement page it adds a lot to the article it is legitimate info well cited and the brown page included a lot of democratic endorsements as well as senator snowe who generally doesn't endorse in out state races anyway I worked hard on that page and am reinstating it immediately Cotton Rogers ( talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Also included celebrity endorsement of Dave Cowens and we have an endorsement page for the general presidential election why not delete that too. also democrats endorsed brown and that is worth noting anyway do not re-delete or I will report it as vandalism Cotton Rogers ( talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The Democratic primary is contested in name - but by that argument so is the current presidential republican nomination. Can someone explain why we can't put the presumptive nominee up? Hipocrite ( talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite empty, please help around ! Positive proposals, attacks on the other side, budget. Yug (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps pasting an old version of Elizabeth_Warren#Cherokee_self-identification into the 'General_election_campaign' section of this article. This violates WP:COATRACK. If it doesn't belong in the section about her senate run in the article on Elizabeth Warren, it certainly doesn't belong here. Will the person doing this please stop. FurrySings ( talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Put it in the Elizabeth Warren article if you can. If you can't it certainly doesn't belong here. This is a BLP violation, and I will continue to treat it as such. Stop your politically biased editing. FurrySings ( talk) 05:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This Article reports on the election. Early on, Warren made a series of unforced mis-statements to the press, and raised questions about whether she had ever taken advantage of what has turned out to be a false family narrative. This dominated the airwaves in the only market that counts, the State. It has attracted more attention than any economic policy or campaign ad. For a time, neither Warren nor Brown could appear in public without being dogged by questions about the false Indian narrative, and both avoided the question, Brown successfully, Warren, not so much. This article CANNOT be considered NPOV WITHOUT an extensive section on the controversy, whether you "Like" it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKE) or not. It does not matter if it is a substantive issue or not, Wikipedia does not care, nor is it edited to conform to a person's "likes".
The Rationale given for CONDENSING the story on the Elizabeth Warren page was that it overshadowed her much longer academic career, and that WP:UNDUE applied, since the Senate Campaign was a short part of her personal narrative. Not sure that was appropriate, since the Campaign is also the most notable, but that matters little. We are now speaking of the ELECTION CAMPAIGN, and the most reported story of THE CAMPAIGN has to be there, and must be MUCH longer than lists of not-candidates, obscure polls far removed from the election, and comments on comments by obscure CEOs or Missouri pols. WP:COATRACK is just ridiculous.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As he is at last check on the ballot for the November election for said senate seat in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate election (running as an independent Campaign Page) should he not at least be mentioned and or noted and at least put in the 'Results' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.7 ( talk) 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Deadline for completion of filing for a Non-Party, or Independent Candidate is Aug 28, so the lack of an update on the Secretary of State site may not imply the negative (they haven't posted Primary results either). [ [4]] is marginal as a WP:RS, but the Patriot Ledger definitely qualifies,[ [5]] though it only announces his INTENTION to join race, not if he qualified to be on the ballot. Good luck, good catch.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 15:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is disagreement about the extent to which Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee self-identification should be discussed in this article. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Need a section on Fundraising, and the pact between Brown and Warren to donate to charity any money spent on their behalf by Super-PACs. Might mention (a subject of much discussion) that most of Warren's money comes from OUTSIDE of the State, Brown's from WITHIN, and that BOTH take a lot from Financial companies.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Just so we all understand: Not a single vote in this election will be changed by this Wikipedia article. The election will not be affected by this article. Anyone seeking to help Brown or Warren should hold signs, canvass supporters, or work the phones. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a newspaper, democracy, or battleground. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article may be time-sensitive, but it is intended to endure for the ages. Imagine what this article should look like in 1, 10, or 50 years. So let's all not get bogged down in the minutiae of he-said-she-said, thinking it might somehow help a candidate. It won't. This is a book — a history — that's being written for the future. Let's make it something for which we can all be proud.— GoldRingChip 22:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the Predicted rankings section because the ones posted were taken very recently, and gave undue security to the Warren campaign. When the race first began, many were Tossup to Leans R, but the ones up made it appear that this election was a safe Democrat win. Unless all predicted rankings for this race can be complied, I feel they should be kept out, in place of polling which more accurately shows the progress of the race and campaigns. I would also like to point out that very few other election articles have predicted ranking sections. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Every senate, gubernatorial, congressional and even mayoral election page uses exactly the same polling table, except for one single senate election page: this one. I propose that it is changed to bring it into line with all the others. I changed it myself but GoldRingChip objected. I don't see there's any reason for keeping this one as the odd one out but some might disagree. Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article, can't wait! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
All in all, the article is pretty good, but there are some spots that could use improvement. I'll leave the GA review open for seven days. Lemme know if you have any questions! :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, any update on this? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Varnent ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Well written - no obvious copyedits found. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | Complies with MoS. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Covers the election thoroughly. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | Aftermath section has potential to become a problem - but for now seems fine. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Appears stable and appropriate edits made following first GA nomination | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | Appears to meet the GA criteria and notes from first GA nomination were followed well. |
Please add any related discussion here.
I just moved a bunch of material from the Warren page that should be here, as this is the main page on the election. I am just moving it, not endorsing it. People should edit as they see fit to make the material fit the page. Darx9url ( talk) 06:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 01:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 02:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kimballpoliticalconsulting.com/KPC_MA_Statewide_October18_21.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://assets.wnec.edu/112/SenatePressReleaseTables_03_14_11.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)