This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"These midterm elections will take place in the middle of Republican President Donald Trump's term, assuming he serves a full four years." Just wondering if the last part of this sentence is necessary or if it adds bias to the article. Nathanlds ( talk) 21:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No. It's true, it would be in the middle of his term is he does serve for years, just like how 2010 would be in the middle of Obamas term if he did fully serve his 1st term. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Although I have no problem that this part of this sentence has been removed. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe the map is no longer accurate, as Roy Moore defeated Luthor Strange in the Alabama Republican Primary. I guess that makes Alabama a retiring Republican (assuming Strange doesn't run as a write-in candidate)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.119.254 ( talk) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Texas has a primary in March and the ballot deadline is Monday!!!!! There's nothing else until May, which means that we're going to start having lots and lots of fun sometime in March....Just thought y'all could use the heads-up Arglebargle79 ( talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Wisconsin special election for a state senate Wisconsin has happened i think we add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.0.10 ( talk) 09:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added {{POV-statement}} to the only sentences in the section, as I believe it to be biased. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 09:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead? Casprings ( talk) 01:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
*Include Whatever we may think of the USA that the amateurish Russian trolling operation seems to have impacted their election, it really looks like it may have. At the very least, the popular impression that the election may be illegitimate is notable enough that it should go in the lede.
Simonm223 (
talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
As a separate point, if I were to say
Charles Koch and
David Koch intend to interfere with the election.
[4]
[5], it would be (rightly) removed.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 23:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Electoral interference is - Foreign groups funding campaigns. Foreign groups tampering with ballots. Electoral interference is not - Bernie Sanders colouring books. Memes telling people to write praise Trump so that cartoon Jesus will punch a cartoon devil. If we have evidence of the former it might be notable. If this is just more social media trolls, I would say it's not notable in the slightest yet. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
What's a midterm election? Which countries have midterm elections? What's the purpose, imapact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned with some people inserting potentially "biased" information made from politically motivated articles. Such as this and this Batran99 ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In analysis, the 2018 mid-term elections will be known for it's new array of ads, unlike what we've seen in the past."
This sentence is incoherent and ungrammatical. In particular, please change "it's" to "its". 2001:569:782B:7A00:30AC:60DE:36DD:3C2D ( talk) 07:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There have been repeated reverts over the consensus above to include Russian interference in the lede by User talk:Polinht and User:Determom. I would ask both users to stop reverting what is consensus and, if they wish to change consensus to talk about it here. Casprings ( talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don’t usually work on these kinds of articles, but would there be anything wrong with including state government control in the table I.e. trifectas and whatnot? It seems relevant and I imagine that there’s a source somewhere that addresses it if need be. Jay eyem ( talk) 13:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The results should include more than simple tallies of the number of seats decided between the two parties. Especially insofar as the House of Representatives is supposed to be responsive to the will of the voters, some higher level information should be presented. How well did the election achieve that goal of allowing the voters to express their will? I think one important metric would be proportion of the actual voters against the resulting legislature. Though some seats are still undecided (as of this writing), it appears the Democratic Party will have slightly over 50% of the House. Right now the figure is 51% with 3.9% of the seats not yet determined, but let's say they split the difference and the final figure is 53%. If the Democratic Party also received 53% of the total vote for House seats, then that would say the elections are working well, but if they actually received more, then that is a metric of unwellness that should be tracked over time. (In recent House elections this metric has been reported on the order of a 5% difference in some sources, but I'd prefer to see the raw numbers on Wikipedia.) Shanen ( talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
As of right now, the paragraph at the end of this section is still written in future tense, as though the election were still in the future. Somebody with far more information than I have needs to rewrite it to reflect the election's results. JDZeff ( talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Much better now; thanx! And, I hope that it will be updated again when those last few races are officially decided. All in all, this looks like a job well done! JDZeff ( talk) 19:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources for the turnout? Abductive ( reasoning) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Historic turnout
A professor, from the University of Florida; Michael McDonald, documented the ballot numbers as they were reported, and reported that the percentage turnout of eligible voters surpassed the 1966 midterm election percentage of 48.7%, and that it is the largest midterm turnout since the 1914 midterm election which had a 50.4% turnout. [1] [2] [3] [4] |
References
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Should it be indicated that the governor of Kansas was seeking re-election but was eliminated in the primary which makes the map, although correct, misleading. CaptainActualist ( talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment:
Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Putting in a section note. Does not seem unusual or contentious to me but I see it's been contentious and RFC above so I am mentioning I have put at the bottom of Alleged foreign interference section mention that the DNI 22 Dec report said no tampering, but foreign influence campaigns persisted - including from China, Iran, Russia. (No details in the bit I saw.) I didn't see any discussion or mention of this or the earlier DHS informal saying about the same thing, so I skipped the DHS item and just put in the DNI one. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason the graph at the beginning of the Federal elections section jumps around in years? It seems to me it should be chronological. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The editor Orser67 has restored a version of the lede full of unsourced content that has not been covered in the body:
On November 29, the same editor insisted [6] that an issue "that isn't mentioned in the article and... isn't cited" should not be in the lede, and that "the lead should generally only summarize what's in the article". Currently, the body of the article only emphasizes the important role that health care, taxes, immigration and race played in the election. As a result, the lede should only cover those issues. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"These midterm elections will take place in the middle of Republican President Donald Trump's term, assuming he serves a full four years." Just wondering if the last part of this sentence is necessary or if it adds bias to the article. Nathanlds ( talk) 21:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No. It's true, it would be in the middle of his term is he does serve for years, just like how 2010 would be in the middle of Obamas term if he did fully serve his 1st term. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Although I have no problem that this part of this sentence has been removed. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe the map is no longer accurate, as Roy Moore defeated Luthor Strange in the Alabama Republican Primary. I guess that makes Alabama a retiring Republican (assuming Strange doesn't run as a write-in candidate)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.119.254 ( talk) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Texas has a primary in March and the ballot deadline is Monday!!!!! There's nothing else until May, which means that we're going to start having lots and lots of fun sometime in March....Just thought y'all could use the heads-up Arglebargle79 ( talk) 01:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Wisconsin special election for a state senate Wisconsin has happened i think we add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.0.10 ( talk) 09:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added {{POV-statement}} to the only sentences in the section, as I believe it to be biased. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 09:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead? Casprings ( talk) 01:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
*Include Whatever we may think of the USA that the amateurish Russian trolling operation seems to have impacted their election, it really looks like it may have. At the very least, the popular impression that the election may be illegitimate is notable enough that it should go in the lede.
Simonm223 (
talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
As a separate point, if I were to say
Charles Koch and
David Koch intend to interfere with the election.
[4]
[5], it would be (rightly) removed.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 23:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Electoral interference is - Foreign groups funding campaigns. Foreign groups tampering with ballots. Electoral interference is not - Bernie Sanders colouring books. Memes telling people to write praise Trump so that cartoon Jesus will punch a cartoon devil. If we have evidence of the former it might be notable. If this is just more social media trolls, I would say it's not notable in the slightest yet. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
What's a midterm election? Which countries have midterm elections? What's the purpose, imapact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned with some people inserting potentially "biased" information made from politically motivated articles. Such as this and this Batran99 ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In analysis, the 2018 mid-term elections will be known for it's new array of ads, unlike what we've seen in the past."
This sentence is incoherent and ungrammatical. In particular, please change "it's" to "its". 2001:569:782B:7A00:30AC:60DE:36DD:3C2D ( talk) 07:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
There have been repeated reverts over the consensus above to include Russian interference in the lede by User talk:Polinht and User:Determom. I would ask both users to stop reverting what is consensus and, if they wish to change consensus to talk about it here. Casprings ( talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don’t usually work on these kinds of articles, but would there be anything wrong with including state government control in the table I.e. trifectas and whatnot? It seems relevant and I imagine that there’s a source somewhere that addresses it if need be. Jay eyem ( talk) 13:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The results should include more than simple tallies of the number of seats decided between the two parties. Especially insofar as the House of Representatives is supposed to be responsive to the will of the voters, some higher level information should be presented. How well did the election achieve that goal of allowing the voters to express their will? I think one important metric would be proportion of the actual voters against the resulting legislature. Though some seats are still undecided (as of this writing), it appears the Democratic Party will have slightly over 50% of the House. Right now the figure is 51% with 3.9% of the seats not yet determined, but let's say they split the difference and the final figure is 53%. If the Democratic Party also received 53% of the total vote for House seats, then that would say the elections are working well, but if they actually received more, then that is a metric of unwellness that should be tracked over time. (In recent House elections this metric has been reported on the order of a 5% difference in some sources, but I'd prefer to see the raw numbers on Wikipedia.) Shanen ( talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
As of right now, the paragraph at the end of this section is still written in future tense, as though the election were still in the future. Somebody with far more information than I have needs to rewrite it to reflect the election's results. JDZeff ( talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Much better now; thanx! And, I hope that it will be updated again when those last few races are officially decided. All in all, this looks like a job well done! JDZeff ( talk) 19:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources for the turnout? Abductive ( reasoning) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Historic turnout
A professor, from the University of Florida; Michael McDonald, documented the ballot numbers as they were reported, and reported that the percentage turnout of eligible voters surpassed the 1966 midterm election percentage of 48.7%, and that it is the largest midterm turnout since the 1914 midterm election which had a 50.4% turnout. [1] [2] [3] [4] |
References
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Should it be indicated that the governor of Kansas was seeking re-election but was eliminated in the primary which makes the map, although correct, misleading. CaptainActualist ( talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment:
Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 00:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Putting in a section note. Does not seem unusual or contentious to me but I see it's been contentious and RFC above so I am mentioning I have put at the bottom of Alleged foreign interference section mention that the DNI 22 Dec report said no tampering, but foreign influence campaigns persisted - including from China, Iran, Russia. (No details in the bit I saw.) I didn't see any discussion or mention of this or the earlier DHS informal saying about the same thing, so I skipped the DHS item and just put in the DNI one. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason the graph at the beginning of the Federal elections section jumps around in years? It seems to me it should be chronological. FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The editor Orser67 has restored a version of the lede full of unsourced content that has not been covered in the body:
On November 29, the same editor insisted [6] that an issue "that isn't mentioned in the article and... isn't cited" should not be in the lede, and that "the lead should generally only summarize what's in the article". Currently, the body of the article only emphasizes the important role that health care, taxes, immigration and race played in the election. As a result, the lede should only cover those issues. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)