Talk:2008 United States Senate election in Mississippi

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Thank you

  • Thank-you wikipedia for not deleting this article. Iam currently in the process of fixing this and will add more later. If u noticed i added some canidates. please fell free to edit, and leave comments on my talk page.-Politics rule 6:20 pm est 4/16/2007.
I fully believe that this article has been fixed!!! -Politics rule 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Original proposal

  • Agree - The two Wyoming elections are on the same page, and it looks nicer than the two separate pages for the two Mississippi elections. Also it would be easier for potential voters who want to use Wikipedia as a source of information to have both elections on one page. - Comedy240 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree The Wyoming elections aren't having the controversy/drama that the Mississippi special election is having. As a Mississippian, I can say with all the "stuff" going on surrounding our special election, it will end up getting an article all its own anyway - especially once it all goes to court and the dirt really starts getting kicked up. Here we are with the former National Republican Party boss who is now the governor of Mississippi, trying to circumvent state law so that come November 2008, the Republican that he's appointed will have had some time on the job - his way of trying to not give Democrats any "spotlight" right up to the final day in 2008 when voters will then, under the gov's interpretation of the law, finally get to vote for who should represent them in the U.S. Senate. It's almost like a movie script playing out in real life. -- ALLSTARecho 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is fair to say you have a strong point of view on this subject. - Comedy240 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree There is no controversy concerning the date of the special election in Wyoming for Barasso's appointed seat being on the same day as the regular election in which Enzi's trying to keep his seat. Misissippi's election law is disputed as to when the special election will be held. Governor Barbour wants it held the same day as the general election, but the law states that the special election must be held within 90 days, hence the dispute which is going to court. If the courts determine that the special election must take place within 90 or so days, then this article has to be kept intact. Only if the courts decide in favor of Gov. Barbour would I then see merging the two articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Steelbeard1 that if the elections are held on separate days, there should be two articles, but if they are held on the same day then it should be merged. - Comedy240 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree As per Steelbeard1. There are dispute of when the election will be date wise. Wyoming election's are on the same day, but these elections may not. I disagree for now because there is no date. Keep the two Mississippi elections seperate until we have a date. America69 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree Steelbeard1 and America69 are right, and additionally keeping the page as is allows discussion of the controversy and resulting court case to remain on this page and not ambiguate the other article. Adebeus (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is official now per [1]. Governor Barbour has set the special election date as November 4, 2008 (in violation of the law) and will announce an interim Senator on December 31, 2007 (13 days, also in violation of the law that says one must be appointed within 10 days if the Senate is still in session, which it is according to their web site as they convened today and will do so again on Dec. 31). -- ALLSTARecho 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Barbour may have set the date of the election as the same day as Thad Cocharn's seat is up, but this is going to probaly be in court, so we can't say that it will be on November 4,2008 yet. America69 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've already established that this shouldn't be merged because of the pending court case. Barbour has set the special election for Nov. 4, 08 already. Whether the court allows that or not, if it even goes to court, is another issue. -- ALLSTARecho 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus is to keep the two articles separate. We may reopen merger discussions if the courts decide in favor of Gov. Barbour.Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was never moved from the old discussion since I told most of you that i made a suggestion I take it you already read it:
I have moved the missipi special electioon page to the class I page since that is keeping with wikipedia precedent/standars for congressional elections. I have kept the Wyoming page merged since there is a precedent for keeping them merged when they are on the same day (see Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006).--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revived proposal

  • Agree I think we need to reconsider this proposal these elections are just like the Wyoming and so there is no confusion anyone if they are looking for these elections Gang14 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Disagree Don't combine articles. I think these elections are completely different. Heck, they might not even occur at the same time. Why don't we combine all the Senate elections, if we want to streamline? Combining MS elections is a bad idea and will confuse things and will muddle information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist1983 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus already reached and closed 2 days ago that the 2 articles not be merged. Therefore, I have removed the merge tags. As was stated in the previous discussion just above this one, this election will likely end up in the courts. Further, there will be no confusion for anyone looking for one article or the other as both are tagged with "This article is about.. For the article about.. click here". And these elections aren't just like the Wyoming elections. The Wyoming elections do not have any controversy, aka going to court, violations of state law, etc., as does the Mississippi special election. -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per discussion last month. We can merge them if/when it is decided that they are on the same day. That's my standard here.—Markles 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per the above. —Nightstallion 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This second merger discussion, opened 2 days after the previous one above this one, has been closed because it's already been discussed above this section and a consensus was reached to NOT merge the 2 articles. -- ALLSTARecho 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

I just thought of something... I've read up on this issue and I've heard differing opions about whether Barbor has the right to set the special election in Nov. or not. The fact of the matter is none of us can be sure either way. Even the state's Democratic Attorney General Secretary of State is siding with Barbor on this one. I totally agree that the spirit of the law was meant to have it within 90/100 days but the wording of the law is ambiguous.
Yes... there is a pending court case but the "official" state of things right now is that the election is scheduled for Nov. I'm not going to merge because it's not worth messing with but my point is this; this is the type of thing that get's wikipedia accussed of being biased towards liberals/democrats. I don't think it sends the right message. I know a couple of wikipedians who would have a fit if I told them about this debate and it's outcome.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the state's Democratic Secretary who sides with Barbour. It's the AG that's suing him. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The Democratic Secretary of State sides with Barbour... I still stand by my concern about "bias" (funny... I don't remeber writing that as my origianl heading.. hm).--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal III

The original and revived proposals were shot down because of the possibility that the two elections would be held on different days. We now know they will not be. Now that that argument is out of the way, should they be merged? -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed in Merge 3 section below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Democratic candidates

The list of potential Democratic candidates is, in my opinion, far too inclusive. On no other senate election page are so many potential candidates (currently twenty-two) listed in one party; the two senate pages that come the closest are Massachusetts and Montana, which have seven and eight potential Republican candidates, respectively. It seems as if the list includes the names of any hypothetically viable prominent Democratic politician and automatically assumes that each and every one of them is considering a race against Thad Cochran, who by all reasonable accounts is safe.

Gene Taylor's office has said previously that Taylor was unlikely to run even in an open seat, when there was talk of Cochran retiring. Why is he included on the list now that Cochran has announced that he is running for reelection? Bennie Thompson is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. What would possess him to leave his safe house seat and committee chairmanship for a seemingly quixotic senate bid against a five-term incumbent? The same goes for Jim Hood, who just won re-election as Mississippi AG and made statements similar to Gene Taylor about his disinterest in either an open Cochran seat, or, I believe, the vacant Lott seat. Since this list speculates without any hesitation or rationale for the inclusion of various Democrats, why not include Mike Espy? Why not include William J. McCoy, the Mississippi Speaker of the House? If we are to follow this same logic for potential Democratic candidates, I also feel that we should be listing potential Republican challengers to Cochran (such as Haley Barbour, Trent Lott, Chip Pickering, Charles W. Pickering, Tate Reeves, Amy Tuck, and so on). If the latter is silly to include in the article, why isn't the former?

Since so much of this page is speculation, I do not see why I should be forced to find a referenced Shermanesque statement for each candidate before removing him or her from the list. If anything, I feel that it would be more proper for a potential candidate to not be listed until there is an included reference stating that said candidate is considering the race. I have removed Ronnie Musgrove and Ronnie Shows, since they have both made statements that they will challenge Roger Wicker. I'm leaving the rest of the list as-is for now; however, I strongly feel that it should be shorter. Bridger (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any candidates, potential or confirmed, should be sourced directly in the article. If there is no source, they do not belong in the article. And I apologize for my reversion. Feel free to remove/add as sourced. -- ALLSTARecho 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All "potential" candidates must have bonafide jounalistic citations to back up the speculation. Otherwise, they do not belong in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, that's what I said... -- ALLSTARecho 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; I am removing the list of potential candidates from the article and placing them below, in case some of those listed are in fact considering the race. Bridger (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Democratic candidates

(Citations are needed)


Merge 3

Now that the courts have decided that both Senate elections are going to be on the same date, the articles should be merged per Allstarecho's, gang 14's, Comedy240's America69's, & Markles's points from December/January.
Page should be like United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -- Because of the controversy concerning the date of the special election which led to the development of the lengthy controversy section, the articles should be kept separate to avoid the creation of a very lengthy article. Because the Wyoming special election had absolutely no controversy as well as the fact that both the special and regular senate elections in Wyoming are not considered competitive (making the Wyoming article relatively short) while the Mississippi special election is considered competitive, the Mississippi senate election articles should again be kept separate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. Merging suggests we don't understand the U.S. Senate or our federal govt. It's got nothing to do with the controversy. I don't care if we got it wrong in Wyoming or anywhere else. This is a stand-alone article, and every U.S. Senate race should have its own article.Journalist1983 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why stop at the Senate... See Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006 where there was also a special election and general election on the same day. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs ended upbeing elected to the remaining 3 weeks of the then current congressional term. --Dr who1975 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why stop anywhere? Why not put one article titled "All elections in the U.S."? There are 439 elections of the House every two years and about 33 senate races. That's why. Senate races are bigger deals. That's why you don't ever see a U.S. Senator giving up his/her seat to run for the House. Journalist1983 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger Neutral I wouldn't mind it staying like it is, but don't mind it being merged either. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I now oppose the merge per Journalist1983 that each election should have its own article, special election or regular. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per old reason: the elections will be held on the same day. Comedy240 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per Comedy240.—Markles 11:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per discussions above. Also, same day (Comedy 240) isn't enough because there will be 3 dozen Senate races on that day.—Markles 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be 3 dozen Senate races but they're not all in Mississippi.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Mississippi races have as much in common with each other as they do with the other races across the country.—Markles 15:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except they will appear on the same ballot. Comedy240 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So too will there be other offices on the MS ballot. But we don't write articles about the ballot, do we? Should we write one article titled "All elections in Mississippi in November 2008"? In some states, that would include state offices, too. No, we write them about important races, the campaigns. WP can set whatever guidelines it wants for a cutoff -- it could be each House race down to each race for city council -- but without a doubt every Senate race is unique and often, as this year, each Senate seat could tip the balance of power in Washington. In the House, one race is not likely to tip control. It could in the Senate. Moreover, due to Senate rules, it's fair to say each Senator has substantially more "power" or leverage than his/her counterpart in the House. Again, that's why House members tend to run for the Senate and not the other way around. Regardless, Senate races are completely unique from each other, even in the same state and on the same day. We provide redirect information at the top of each article in case someone is confused. Suggest we move on. Journalist1983 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the discussions above. There are too many races that day. America69 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Always felt it should be one article and still do Gang14 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick update... I feel there is no harm leaving this open for an extended period of time. As November approaches the page will get more attention and more people will provide input to this debate. I am OK closing the other split debate (which has a much clearer concensus of "do not split") so long as nobody uses that close as an excuse to also close this debate.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Thad Cochran's race is basically an afterthought. A merged article with both races wouldn't be all that long. Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • still strongly oppose. all u.s. senate races should have their own articles; i can't help it we did it wrong in wyoming. there's only 33-34 every two years. what's really needed is a WP policy stating this. it doesn't matter if cochran has a cakewalk. that's what they said about george allen last cycle. where are you going to draw the line on a cakewalk? Lots of senators have cakewalks. besides, a cakewalk is still a separate election. why do people keep bringing this up? aren't you tired of this? drwho, senate elections are very different than house elections. there are 439 house elections every two years; there are only 33-34 senate elections. nevetheless, i would be in favor of an article for each house election too. for pete's sake, WP has articles about specific episodes of TV shows (see Arrested Development 29); if you want to cut down on stuff, maybe that is a better place to start. Journalist1983 (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Thad Cochran election is only a few lines, I'd be inclined to agree with your arrested developement analogy (good show btw) but elections don't have the same kind of following that TV shows have and I bet I could find many wikipedians who think TV episode pages should be combined if they didn;t know they would be stymied in their efforts by countless fanboys. Even with the pointers and markers on the page I think two pages is confusing to the lay person who is looking up all the November elections in Mississippi. These two elections are also going to inextricably bound by various media sources thatdiscuss them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even more--I just inserted candidates' lists for the United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and noticed that article had become very awkward looking. So I inserted a proposal to split that article. Needless to say, I oppose merging the two Mississippi election articles even more now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PLEASE ADD THESE COMMENTS TO YOUR ORIGINAL ONES Steelbeard1, please remove the highlighted wording, even with the words "eve more" it still makes it look like an extra person has weighed in on this discussion, you may also move your new comments up the list so that they are indented uner your old comments. Please also remove my comment here once you have made the requested alterations. P.S. Your recent edits to the Wyoming page are what made it look awkward... I have fixed them and added a note to the debate on the discussion section of that page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Who is now discriminating against me. Journalist1983 did exactly the same thing I did but he is not complaining about Journalist1983's new comment. I have lost all respect for Dr. Who and whatever actions taken against him by Wikipedia higherups I'm in favor of. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK...I made a mistake... this thing has been opened for months and Journalist1983 only made his new section a few hours before you did so I did not see it, personally I would like his comments to move his newcomments too but it is clear that I was not careful enough to ask for them to be moved properly so I will withdraw my request... may I remove all the comments you and I have made or would you prefer to do it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let everything stand! Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments asking you to move your new section are not relevant to the dicsussion...as you can see by reading them, I never intended to have them stay. It is clear how little you respect my wishes, if you would like to display to everyone how obtuse and infelxable you are by letting them stay then be my guest. If any admins out there agree that they're irrelevant then please revert to this version.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very relevant as I linked this talk page to other pages related to the dispute between myself and Dr. Who at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Steelbeard1, User talk:Lar#Problem editor and User talk:Jayvdb#Steelbeard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't.--Dr who1975 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The most important thing is to make sure it is adequately explained to the reader how the two elections are related to each other, how they're similar, how they're different. I think this is best accomplished in a single article, where a simple intro can set everything out; but it could also be done with a good rework of the separate articles. (Side note: does anybody know when the runoff would be held, if it happens? That should be included.) -Pete (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I created a merged version of the article, with an expanded lead section. I fully recognize that there is no consensus about whether a merge is the right way to go or not, so this should be regarded as a suggestion; further improvements, as always, are welcome. But I hope if it gets re-separated, that as much work will go into the lead sections as I did in this version; clarity in the lead is my primary concern. -Pete (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the formatting and looks confusing at first glance. I suggest unmerging. Besides, the policy is that if there is no consensus, then the status quo is maintained which means two separate articles.Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steelbeard thanks for taking a look. The discussion about merging began in December '07. As of May '08, the two articles : [2] and [3] had lead sections of three and four sentences, respectively. In my view, that's grossly inadequate for such important articles, which concern somewhat complex subjects. In my view, most of the energy that has gone into discussing or voting on the merge proposals, in the meantime, would be better directed at the article(s) themselves. I welcome your improvements, and as I said, do not object in principle to separate articles; if you see a way to improve it, please do so. I do hope that you will take more than a first glance, though, at what I've done, before changing it; I think the more thorough lead section is a significant improvement (though I wouldn't claim it's perfect). -Pete (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Pete. I'll wait for the others involved in the dispute to give their input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said So I created a merged version of the article, with an expanded lead section. I fully recognize that there is no consensus about whether a merge is the right way to go or not, so this should be regarded as a suggestion but you went ahead and moved and merged and redirected anyway?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that these concensus discussion should be considered votes... bur just to count up whats been going on we have 5 users for and 5 users against (not counting Comedy240's & America69's pro merge points from december that they have not commented on in this discussion. Of course, the arguments should be weighed more heavily than the number of people making them and I would never be one to close debate hastily just because the balance was tipped in favor of my opnion by 1 user (not that I have the power to close this debate anyway). I only bring it up because I think the discsussion itself has gotten muddled in users posting new opinions like I doulbe dog disagree now. I mean... if I wanted to be really silly about this I could easily post some long drawn out new section with a heading like I want it merged so much now that I've started my own religion devoted to merging these pages and then go into detail about the rituals of my new religion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a more constructive note: the Formatting looks fine to me but maybe it's changed since Steelbeard1 registered his first objection. What in particular is or was confusing about them?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, one candidates' list is in a table format and the other is a straight list format and there is no obvious distinction between which race is the regular election and which race is the special election. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the major headings disgtinguish the two elections adequately. Also... there is no specific criteria for how candidates lists should appear and nothing that says tha formats have to be uniform on this page. Indeed some election pages use tables and others use straight lists. I could also argue that having one list in a table and one list in bullet points helps to distinguish between the two elections and thus contributes to helping alleviate that issue as well.
Regardless of my opnion, both of these concerns can be alleivated with edits... we can put more specific descriptions in the subheadings and we can remove the tables from the election that has the tables. I will probably try this out in a bit but I want to think about it first as I'm not sure how major an issue either point truly is (I do however, respect your opinion, it's part of the reason I want to think on it).--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I jumped ahead of you re: lists and tables, Dr. Who. Sorry if my edits are quicker than you guys are used to -- again, I'm not here to edit war, if you see something I did that you don't like, just fix it. -Pete (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steelbeard1, I see that you have created new bullet pointed lists with this edit. Does this mean you are happy with the formatting now?--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because the lists were missing. I'm still not satisfied with the formatting and favor unmerging the articles. Steelbeard1 (talk)
OK... just a reminder that there's no rule that says there must be bullet pointed lists (as much as I like them).--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the prevailing consensus that bulleted pointed lists are used in election articles to see the candidates at a glance. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where's the bullet pointed lists on United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi, 2008. You and I have been working on it for a week or two now and you've never added bullet points or even mentioned them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bulleted lists only applies to individual elections, not articles covering every house race in the state. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this page does cover more than one election. As I said there isn't a rule. Please answer the question below... it is far more important.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the bullets are there now. Is there a problem with them? Can we all try to assume good faith a little? -Pete (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to stay focused on the relevant issues but it is difficult. Steelbeard1, despite having added the bullet points back in, thinks they look awkward and wants to make that point an argument for re-splitting the page. To Stealbeard1, please explain. How do the bullet points look now? Do they look ok or should we still consider splitting the page because they look awkward ?--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bullet points themselves look better now. As for the rest of the article, I've stated my case, let's let others give their input first. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the big tables were kind of excessive (and I think inaccurate, in the case of Cochran, what I found at the MSOS site makes it appear that he didn't appear on the ballot, and if so, a 100% victory wouldn't be accurate.) The lists Steelbeard made look like an improvement to me though. -Pete (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate headings

It's my understanding that the special election is nonpartisan, and that as such, it's merely the specific circumstances of the race that led to a single Democratic and a single Republican candidate. There could have been zero, or 15, Democrats, and there could have been zero, or 15, Republicans, etc. I don't know how Mississippi ballots look, but it may be that their party registration doesn't even get listed on the ballot. In light of all this, I think the "Democratic" and "Republican" section subheads are misleading. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Why did we merge this? There was never a discussion made by an admin. I am just curious why we did this. America69 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think DrWho1975 had something to do with it. Anyway, I started a new split proposal in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't merge them. I just facilitated the discussion. Why would you try to make this personal. You know who merged it... you even talk to him on this very page at the time that he merged it.I've warned you about this behavior before Stelelbeard.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pete made the merge. See article history for May 17-18 (and comments above). He did so at a time that there no consensus for the merge. But he also made a significant improvement to the lead section in clearly distinguishing between the two elections. I assume he merged them because in the course of making those improvements, he saw that the improvements would work better in a merged article. I think the "good" of adding content and improving the encyclopedia trumps the "bad" of making a merge when there is no clear consensus. At the time of Pete's merge, the discussion was five months old and basically evenly split between those in support and those opposed. Pete's edit was bold but not unwarranted, and he commented at the time that editors should feel free to revert. We can now decide to split the article again if we establish consensus that doing so makes the encyclopedia better. But let's keep the discussion looking forward, not backward...Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering how you think it looks better. I really don't see how it does. It looks like a jumbled up mess that needs to be re-done. America69 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - We never had a consencus on the matter to merge these two articles. Instead, we has editors just merge them together, when clearly there was a consencus saying not to merge them. These two articles should not be merged because they are really two different elections. There is one special election, and one election that was supposed to happen. Let's keep them seperate. America69 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There was not a "clear consensus saying not to merge them." There was no consensus at all. Let's start fresh. Rather than discussing whether the merge action was appropriate (as you do in the first part of your comment), let's discuss whether the encyclopedia at the present time would be improved by splitting this article (as you do in the latter part of your comment). Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yea I know there was not a clear consensus, which means the article showed have been left alone. America69 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. "A consensus not to merge" (which you claimed above) is not the same as "no consensus" (which you now acknowledge). Yes, usually, in cases of no consensus the status quo reigns. However, the content that has been added since then may change the equation. Let's keep our discussion looking forward: Lay out the best reasons you can for why you think the current version of the article should be split.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Northwestern, I am curious. If I was to change the article back to two seperate ones, and have all the editors work and or look into it, would you support having two different ones, if we all worked on it. You can also reply on my talk. America69 (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical. I'm on record below as "keep merged." This seems like one "topic" to me, and until such time as it becomes too complex or confusing to cover in one article, I think it should stay merged. Of course, if consensus emerged to split the articles, I would support that.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merged - There are two separate events, yes. But there is one unified encyclopedia topic, "United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008," just like United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi, 2008 is one topic. Maintaining this information in one article helps keep the overall encyclopedia organized by providing a consistent structure across all senate elections for this year and also helps keep the navbox clean. Note, that a similar proposal to split at United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 appears to be opposed by consensus. The main argument to split this into two articles would be if this one article was too long or too confusing, but it's not. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note. This talk page "United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008" (singular) needs to be moved to match the article title "United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008" (plural). Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC
  • Keep merged, or at the very least, let's see an example of what a good pair of articles would look like before deciding to go that way. I'm the one who merged the articles; I did so because I saw a great number of improvements that needed to be made to the article(s), and didn't see any good way to make them in separate articles. I would not presume to say it's impossible to write good articles separately, but the separate articles were very bare-bones, and did not cover the races in a way that was comprehensive or that was easy to me, as a relative newcomer to the issue, to comprehend. Please note the major expansion and refinement of the article, by myself and others, that has occurred since merging the articles. It remains difficult for me to imagine separate articles that cover the topic as effectively; if somebody has that vision, I encourage them to write the separate articles (or at least the intro sections) and submit them for discussion. In the meantime, I'll be working on things I consider more substantive improvements; we have a lot of races to cover, and an election that's approaching fast. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side Note You would like it because you did it. I also like how you went ahead and did it without a concensus. America69 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have a problem with my actions, bring it to my talk page, or seek some kind of dispute resolution. Let's keep this talk page focused on the matter at hand: what is the best way to serve the reader, going forward. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • America69... Pete's not entitled to a comment because he worked on the article? In that case... just about all of us in this discussion shouldn;t comment... you included... as we are clearly biased from having worked on the page. Do you see the flaw in what you're saying? It would be like me arguing you're not entitled to say because you wroked on the split version of the article in your language "You would be for a split because you worked on the split version before". Just food for thought.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split It's become obvious that the special election will be much closer than originally thought, and therefore it's a notable event. It should have its own article Nevermore27 (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but there's no question about the notability of either event. Both events are notable. Notability is an inclusion criterion, it doesn't have anything to do with how things are covered in Wikipedia.
    Suppose a reader's primary question is "what's up with the Senate elections in Mississippi -- is there one? Two?" They do a Wikipedia search on "Senate election Mississippi 2008". What next? I don't see how two separate articles would serve such a reader better than one. And I think that will be a common sort of question on this topic. -Pete (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete does raise a point about the questions someone may ask, but I also agree that the Special Election is much more noticable. Thad Cochran is no doubt safe, and Roger Wicker is no where close to being safe. Two articles would make it easier because no doubt as Election Day approches, much more news will be happening about Wicker's seat then Cochran's. America69 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split These "extra" elections in Mississippi and Wyoming are sepcial elections, not general elections. I can respect the views of some that want to minimize the number of articles, but the fact remains that special elections general receive their own articles. Notability or whether the election is "competitive" shouldn't come into play. Every election general is notable in its own right, and has its own article. For example, there was a special election in Maryland's 4th congressional district on June 17, 2008. The general election is discussed on the United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008. Even though both elections were in 2008, we don't discuss the special election in detail on the 2008 elections page. Just because both Senate elections happen to fall on the same day, doesn't mean they should be included in the same article. I also realize Senate special elections are very rare, but that doesn't mean Senate special elections don't deserve their own articles. You can keep a reference in the main 2008 general election article that a special election is occuring, but point readers to the other article for details with a "see XX special election" link at the top of the article.Dcmacnut (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge Same reason I gave for merging to begin with Gang14 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merged The elections are on the same ballot on the same day... two articles would be confusing. BTW.. since no one wants to read above... When User:Peteforsyth merged the articles a few months back... the discussion had progressed to where there actually was a slight concensus toward the merge (which admitedly is not a clear concensus)... just as there is now a slight concensus toward keeping it merged in this discussion at the time of my writng this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merged Given that the two elections are on the same day, it makes sense to keep them merged, let alone the length of the article doesn't argue for a split (i.e., it isn't too long). ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merged. These are admittedly two separate contests but they're for the same office, in the same state and are being held on the same day. This article's not unwieldy – let's leave it as is. — Lincolnite (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just want to clarify something. The notability guideline states that notability is necessary in order for a topic to be covered by an article. It does not state that notability is sufficient for creating a separate article. In choosing what articles to create, and how to best serve the reader, we are not beholden to any policy or guideline; we are supposed to use our editorial judgment. Special elections, and the like, are not stakeholders who "deserve" articles of their own. The stakeholders here are the encyclopedia's readers; whatever presentation best enables them to learn about a subject, is the presentation we should choose. -Pete (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date controversy

Excellent rewrite, Therefore. This section was badly needing a rewrite, it's much clearer now. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I appreciate the feedback. When I came to the article, I read that section and scratched my head asking, "What were the issues? What were the political issues"? Hopefully I helped the next reader understand it better. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other dual senate elections are split

I don't want to stir the pot on the merge business here, but just a note that New York in 2010 will also likely face double senate elections, and there I've created two separate articles, United States Senate election in New York, 2010 and United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. These two elections will be completely unalike (the regular will probably a snoozer with Schumer easily defeating a no-name, while the special has already been full of drama and the appointment hasn't even been made yet), and having them combined was already causing too much confusion. Separate seems to make more sense. I'd also note that United States Senate election in California, 1992 and United States Senate special election in California, 1992 are separate as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I don't necessarily have a problem with separate articles, but I want to be sure that it is clear to the leader what the two elections are, how they do (or don't) relate to one another, and why one might be conducted in a different fashion than the other.
If you have a suggestion how to write the lead sections for the two articles, by all means suggest it. It took a bit of effort to get that settled in the present article, and I believe that the work we did led to a pretty good result. Please don't use a procedural matter undermine our effort to write quality content that puts the reader's interests first, above abstract principles like consistency with other races, etc. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't clear, I wasn't arguing for changing your current article; what's done is done. I'm really just trying to establish my rationale for handling the New York 2010 case differently, so that Mississippi 2008 isn't used as a precedent for all others. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gotcha -- sorry for the kneejerky reaction. I do think that it's better, in general, to handle these by writing a single article…but I'm not out to impose my opinion all over the 'pedia, so carry on. Thanks for the note, and keep up the good work. -Pete (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more important to keep consistency. In every other election year, the special election has a seperate article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 → United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 — When the special election was given its own page, this one should have been renamed "election" rather than "elections" as it only lists one election, not 2. There already exists a page at United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate electionss in Mississippi, 2008, which should be deleted by an administrator as I accidentally created it when trying to move this page Tiller54 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this has already been done.[4] --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008" can now be found at Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008/Old history. Graham87 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2008_United_States_Senate_election_in_Mississippi"