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. |
This article should be entirely refocused on the two candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 06:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No it should not. Wikipedia should be party neutral and cover all the candidates, to the extent possible equally well. I really do think that is possible. It's not like Robert is a hermit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.178.10.107 (
talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
All candidates on the ballot should receive equal coverage on Wikipedia (keep it non-biased).
JoshMcCullough (
talk) 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This article's content seems quite out of balance by party, particularly as it relates to republican candidacy and dialogue (multiple paragraphs and lopsided poll statistics).
I'm recommending that this article be reformatted to either build out associative polls.
I also question the formatting as it relates to consistently placing republican candidates on top, both via the primaries and even down to the web URLs for the candidates themselves.
Certainly the article should not have as it's current main starting page now not the republican primary result set, as that is not current nor would it be as beneficial to the reader as who the candidates are. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
See my comment to the current editor for my rational for the refocus of the article, removing content which should be on drill-able pages and not in this article [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the two people, I'm looking at it as a viewer, and I can tell you that, that section should be included in a controversy section. Much less I didn't even see what you are mentioning here. Do you agree that the content is bloated though, particularly as it related to the double entries of 'Connolly' and listing the republican primary as the main page content. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see listing Jim Webb as a potential? What is that citation, a random blog post that this guy should run from over year ago. This article needs the reformat, impeding it with rationale to include that 'person A cheated person B' without a controversy section, well it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok I did some research. Sorry for wasting your time and thank you both for the information. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As a reader I still like the controversy section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note this "That your edit removes any mention of Bill Bolling is a major problem, as the way the Virginia Republicans essentially rigged the primary for Cuccinelli is a pretty major part of the story of this election. I'd also like to note that dropping a note on a user's talk page does not replace the need to discuss on the article's talk page. I'm not watching Tiller's talk page, but I am watching this page." and
'essentially rigged an election' I did not get that at all from the article or citation, so I have no clue about this rationale.
I like the controversy sections in wiki pages, they improve searching and readability. As do many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading the article more closely, I can say that we need some prose in the Democratic section. We can talk about McAuliffe, in context of this and the 2009 gubernatorial election, and say something about the other potential Democratic candidates. We should find something on Connolly; he was polled once and must've been at least discussed as a potential candidate by a reputable journalist. I believe that will satisfy the concern that this article is slanted towards Republicans. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor has raised a concern about neutrality of the Republican primary section. I think that's a fair assessment of what happened, though maybe there is some wording that portrays Bolling a little too much as the victim? – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Ballotpedia is not a reliable source for a biography. Even if it were, this election page is not the place for an unsourced, slanted biogrpahy of a non-notable candidate. Finally, how many Virginians voted for a 3rd party candidate in the 2012 U.S. presidential election has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party's primary. Tiller54 ( talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Primarily, I would like to point out that Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is still a biased article. User:Tiller54 had it pointed out earlier on his talk page that the majority of the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013's text favors one party over other candidates and nominees. I also expressed this concern to User: Muboshgu, but it seems this section has been ignored, removed, or relocated.
Second, User:Tiller54 has had previous complaints regarding the removal of posts for partisan motives as mentioned on Moboshgu's talk page User: Muboshgu. This complaint is listed as, tiller54 is removing for partisan purposes.. please check the nyc campaign finance board for confirmation of my valid candidacy. Again, this editor, User: Muboshgu, seems to have passed over a valid complaint.
In addition, there is background text, some of it outdated, regarding Republican candidates on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Yet, background text regarding other candidates, be it Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent, is considered partisan? No, I don't think so. You can't have it both ways.
Third, User:Tiller54 and User: Muboshgu say that Robert Sarvis is a non-notable candidate because he is not listed in polls. Sure, that's true; Robert Sarvis is not listed in the polls. But, third party candidates are often excluded from polling, so this isn't a fair basis. What makes a candidate notable in the State of Virginia is not polls, but if he or she is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections (VSBE). Candidates in the State of Virginia have until the deadline in June to submit the 10,000 signatures necessary to be on the ballot as a gubernatorial candidate. So any statement about who is a notable candidate and who isn't is speculation until declared by the VSBE. Robert Sarvis has been recognized by the VSBE in the past as a candidate for Virginia's State Senate District 35, and will probably meet the requirements in June... especially considering there were over 50,000 Virginians who voted for a third party candidate in the 2012 Presidential Elections. This is verified by the VSBE on their website at https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/68C30477-AAF2-46DD-994E-5D3BE8A89C9B/Official/1_s.shtml In addition, the reliance on polls is skewed, because many of the current polls show that there is a larger percentage of undecideds than those who have chosen a candidate. So to say Robert Sarvis, or other candidates, is a non-notable candidate at this time is disingenuous at best.
Therefore, I do not believe a background statement regarding a declared nominee in the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is cause for removal, especially when other declared candidates on the same page do.
Thank you for your time and understanding. Reallibertyforall( talk) 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your concern about the bias issue, I opened up a section above this ( #NPOV?), which has illicited no response from anyone. I take it to mean that nobody else has a NPOV concern on this article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added signature submission information under the minor party and write-in candidates, because minor party and independent candidates are certified for the ballot after sending their "Petitions of Qualified Voters" to the Virginia State Board of Elections. Antarctica4Liberty 03:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am looking for the policy which states minor party candidates are not allowed in the election infobox. Antarctica4Liberty 08:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall ( talk • contribs)
BoldItalicSignature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite
Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox? 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Note - RfC posted to Talk:Ken Cuccinelli, Talk:Terry McAuliffe, and Talk:Robert Sarvis on 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC) seeking more input. Instaurare ( talk) 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Without a clear consensus, how do we proceed? I would point to WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:RGW. Instaurare ( talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the principles of Wikipedia is that there is no deadline. Since the this article exists to record, for encyclopedic purposes, the events surrounding this election, I propose that we suspend the infobox as is for six weeks, and then reopen this discussion. bd2412 T 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Use this image here:
Cannot update myself as article is protected.
JoshMcCullough ( talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. Sarvis' photo has been removed at least twice (check the history) even though it was legitimately uploaded both times w/proper rights.
JoshMcCullough (
talk) 20:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the current photo was legitimately uploaded by Sarvis himself, but I don't know how to check such things. Instaurare ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually I posted the photo on his behalf as a member of his campaign team. What proof do I need to show? (Also, I'm not sure why it matters, should he not have a photo up alongside the other two?) JoshMcCullough ( talk) 01:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please fix Sarvis' photo, again? File: Robert_Sarvis.jpg JoshMcCullough ( talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I did and the request is pending. JoshMcCullough ( talk) 15:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree, this is ridiculous. JoshMcCullough ( talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I think it's important to mention that the VA Tech debate rules where "negotiated by Cuccinelli, McAuliffe and the debate’s sponsor — WDBJ (Channel 7), the Roanoke CBS affiliate" - a clear conflict of interest when two parties are allowed to help decide the rules regarding a third party's inclusion! ( source) JoshMcCullough ( talk) 13:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I've noticed that a poll produced by PPP ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/178109125/VA-Gov-PPP-for-LCV-Oct-2013-Early-Voters-Only) has been added and removed several times since it was released. The issue is that this poll was unusually taken among people who were self-admitted early voters, and not among registered or likely voters like most polls. Is there a precedent for treating polls such as these in polling tables or elsewhere? The poll itself has good information that it would be a shame to lose, but it is so different from the others it seems to be causing problems. - S201676 ( talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/369-newsmax-zogby-tracking-poll-mcauliffe-headed-for-big-win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.85.20 ( talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
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. |
This article should be entirely refocused on the two candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 ( talk) 06:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No it should not. Wikipedia should be party neutral and cover all the candidates, to the extent possible equally well. I really do think that is possible. It's not like Robert is a hermit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.178.10.107 (
talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
All candidates on the ballot should receive equal coverage on Wikipedia (keep it non-biased).
JoshMcCullough (
talk) 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This article's content seems quite out of balance by party, particularly as it relates to republican candidacy and dialogue (multiple paragraphs and lopsided poll statistics).
I'm recommending that this article be reformatted to either build out associative polls.
I also question the formatting as it relates to consistently placing republican candidates on top, both via the primaries and even down to the web URLs for the candidates themselves.
Certainly the article should not have as it's current main starting page now not the republican primary result set, as that is not current nor would it be as beneficial to the reader as who the candidates are. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
See my comment to the current editor for my rational for the refocus of the article, removing content which should be on drill-able pages and not in this article [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the two people, I'm looking at it as a viewer, and I can tell you that, that section should be included in a controversy section. Much less I didn't even see what you are mentioning here. Do you agree that the content is bloated though, particularly as it related to the double entries of 'Connolly' and listing the republican primary as the main page content. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see listing Jim Webb as a potential? What is that citation, a random blog post that this guy should run from over year ago. This article needs the reformat, impeding it with rationale to include that 'person A cheated person B' without a controversy section, well it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok I did some research. Sorry for wasting your time and thank you both for the information. abstergo abstergo accendo ( talk) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
As a reader I still like the controversy section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note this "That your edit removes any mention of Bill Bolling is a major problem, as the way the Virginia Republicans essentially rigged the primary for Cuccinelli is a pretty major part of the story of this election. I'd also like to note that dropping a note on a user's talk page does not replace the need to discuss on the article's talk page. I'm not watching Tiller's talk page, but I am watching this page." and
'essentially rigged an election' I did not get that at all from the article or citation, so I have no clue about this rationale.
I like the controversy sections in wiki pages, they improve searching and readability. As do many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading the article more closely, I can say that we need some prose in the Democratic section. We can talk about McAuliffe, in context of this and the 2009 gubernatorial election, and say something about the other potential Democratic candidates. We should find something on Connolly; he was polled once and must've been at least discussed as a potential candidate by a reputable journalist. I believe that will satisfy the concern that this article is slanted towards Republicans. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
An editor has raised a concern about neutrality of the Republican primary section. I think that's a fair assessment of what happened, though maybe there is some wording that portrays Bolling a little too much as the victim? – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Ballotpedia is not a reliable source for a biography. Even if it were, this election page is not the place for an unsourced, slanted biogrpahy of a non-notable candidate. Finally, how many Virginians voted for a 3rd party candidate in the 2012 U.S. presidential election has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party's primary. Tiller54 ( talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Primarily, I would like to point out that Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is still a biased article. User:Tiller54 had it pointed out earlier on his talk page that the majority of the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013's text favors one party over other candidates and nominees. I also expressed this concern to User: Muboshgu, but it seems this section has been ignored, removed, or relocated.
Second, User:Tiller54 has had previous complaints regarding the removal of posts for partisan motives as mentioned on Moboshgu's talk page User: Muboshgu. This complaint is listed as, tiller54 is removing for partisan purposes.. please check the nyc campaign finance board for confirmation of my valid candidacy. Again, this editor, User: Muboshgu, seems to have passed over a valid complaint.
In addition, there is background text, some of it outdated, regarding Republican candidates on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Yet, background text regarding other candidates, be it Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent, is considered partisan? No, I don't think so. You can't have it both ways.
Third, User:Tiller54 and User: Muboshgu say that Robert Sarvis is a non-notable candidate because he is not listed in polls. Sure, that's true; Robert Sarvis is not listed in the polls. But, third party candidates are often excluded from polling, so this isn't a fair basis. What makes a candidate notable in the State of Virginia is not polls, but if he or she is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections (VSBE). Candidates in the State of Virginia have until the deadline in June to submit the 10,000 signatures necessary to be on the ballot as a gubernatorial candidate. So any statement about who is a notable candidate and who isn't is speculation until declared by the VSBE. Robert Sarvis has been recognized by the VSBE in the past as a candidate for Virginia's State Senate District 35, and will probably meet the requirements in June... especially considering there were over 50,000 Virginians who voted for a third party candidate in the 2012 Presidential Elections. This is verified by the VSBE on their website at https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/68C30477-AAF2-46DD-994E-5D3BE8A89C9B/Official/1_s.shtml In addition, the reliance on polls is skewed, because many of the current polls show that there is a larger percentage of undecideds than those who have chosen a candidate. So to say Robert Sarvis, or other candidates, is a non-notable candidate at this time is disingenuous at best.
Therefore, I do not believe a background statement regarding a declared nominee in the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is cause for removal, especially when other declared candidates on the same page do.
Thank you for your time and understanding. Reallibertyforall( talk) 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your concern about the bias issue, I opened up a section above this ( #NPOV?), which has illicited no response from anyone. I take it to mean that nobody else has a NPOV concern on this article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added signature submission information under the minor party and write-in candidates, because minor party and independent candidates are certified for the ballot after sending their "Petitions of Qualified Voters" to the Virginia State Board of Elections. Antarctica4Liberty 03:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am looking for the policy which states minor party candidates are not allowed in the election infobox. Antarctica4Liberty 08:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall ( talk • contribs)
BoldItalicSignature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite
Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox? 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Note - RfC posted to Talk:Ken Cuccinelli, Talk:Terry McAuliffe, and Talk:Robert Sarvis on 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC) seeking more input. Instaurare ( talk) 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Without a clear consensus, how do we proceed? I would point to WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:RGW. Instaurare ( talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the principles of Wikipedia is that there is no deadline. Since the this article exists to record, for encyclopedic purposes, the events surrounding this election, I propose that we suspend the infobox as is for six weeks, and then reopen this discussion. bd2412 T 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Use this image here:
Cannot update myself as article is protected.
JoshMcCullough ( talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. Sarvis' photo has been removed at least twice (check the history) even though it was legitimately uploaded both times w/proper rights.
JoshMcCullough (
talk) 20:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the current photo was legitimately uploaded by Sarvis himself, but I don't know how to check such things. Instaurare ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually I posted the photo on his behalf as a member of his campaign team. What proof do I need to show? (Also, I'm not sure why it matters, should he not have a photo up alongside the other two?) JoshMcCullough ( talk) 01:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please fix Sarvis' photo, again? File: Robert_Sarvis.jpg JoshMcCullough ( talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I did and the request is pending. JoshMcCullough ( talk) 15:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree, this is ridiculous. JoshMcCullough ( talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I think it's important to mention that the VA Tech debate rules where "negotiated by Cuccinelli, McAuliffe and the debate’s sponsor — WDBJ (Channel 7), the Roanoke CBS affiliate" - a clear conflict of interest when two parties are allowed to help decide the rules regarding a third party's inclusion! ( source) JoshMcCullough ( talk) 13:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I've noticed that a poll produced by PPP ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/178109125/VA-Gov-PPP-for-LCV-Oct-2013-Early-Voters-Only) has been added and removed several times since it was released. The issue is that this poll was unusually taken among people who were self-admitted early voters, and not among registered or likely voters like most polls. Is there a precedent for treating polls such as these in polling tables or elsewhere? The poll itself has good information that it would be a shame to lose, but it is so different from the others it seems to be causing problems. - S201676 ( talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/369-newsmax-zogby-tracking-poll-mcauliffe-headed-for-big-win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.85.20 ( talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)