Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Alaska

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Begich

Are we sure Begich is running? The source given is from more than a year ago and is about the 2018 gubernatorial race. The link to his "campaign website" is a dead link. I have searched the internet and I honestly can't find anything that says he's running, or even anything that says he has an impending announcement. I will move him back to potential unless there is a source for his Senate candidacy that I have missed. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I previously expressed my concerns about articles of this sort elsewhere. Since the election is a year-plus away from being held and therefore no facts of any consequence are known, we shouldn't be giving more weight to this article and other articles on future elections than we do to articles on elections which have occurred and therefore facts are known and sources are known. This is simply one more thing which pushes Wikipedia in the direction of being a news site rather than an encyclopedic resource. Most of the "reliable sources" clogging this article are blog posts and tweets. Regardless of Mark Begich, what you point out is emblematic of the tactic used to build these articles. The folks guilty of this appear to assume that so long as there's a citation at the end of a statement, no one out there needs to scrutinize anything.
The Alaska Division of Elections website lists only two candidates, both certified for the ballot: Al Gross and David Darden. The Federal Election Commission website lists three candidates: Gross, incumbent Senator Sullivan and David Paul Matheny. These four individuals have actually filed paperwork with either entity related to this election. Anything else mentioned in this article is mere speculation, typically referring to people who are good at getting their name mentioned in the news. Not a good way to build something which is supposed to be based on facts and fact checking. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Howe is listed in the infoxbox because a NYT poll recently had him at 10%. However, every other poll does not have him breaking 1%? On average, he's polling well below 5%. Should he really be listed? Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misreading something, I don't think he's polling less than 1% in other polls, but rather, I think the other polls simply didn't include him. I don't have any strong feelings about whether he should be in the infobox, but I don't think it's accurate to say he's polling below 5% if he's at 10% in the only poll to include him. Jacoby531 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jacoby531, you are correct, polls with a dash did not include him as an option and therefore do not impact his polling average. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 04:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

RadioKAOS, links to polls are not inappropriate external links. I have read WP:EL, despite your accusation that I haven't. I've also read WP:CONSENSUS, as well as every other recent Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential election page on Wikipedia. You are challenging a very well-established consensus. Why do you think polls should not be included for this election only? What kind of sources are you claiming we need here? Only polls listed by reputable third party aggregators are included. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 04:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election, a long article filled entirely with this type of content that is updated frequently every day. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 04:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, WP:EL is against placing external links in the body of articles. These should usually only appear in footnotes/citations or down in the external links section. Specifically, WP:ELLIST is opposed to embedded lists (such as tables found in articles) from being primarily composed of external links. So it shouldn't come as a surprise why RadioKAOS is using this for justification. With that said, however, WP:ELLIST makes an exception when an "external link is serving as a citation to a reliable source". An argument could be made that the exception qualifies here. Perhaps creating a dedicated "Source" or "Website" column would be a good compromise, moving the links out of the primary column as shown in the table example at WP:ELLIST.
On another note, there are other concerns besides the external links themselves. First of all, only two polling entities in that list have articles on Wikipedia: Public Policy Polling and Change Research. Since the others do not, then some other secondary source needs to be sourced in this section to show why the others are deemed reliable. Linking to Twitter and Facebook looks suspect. Secondly, there's the concern of party bias. Do some polls tend to skew Democratic or Republican? From what I can tell, every single one listed right now has some kind of tie to the Democratic party, and Alaskan Survey Research may be the most unreliable of the bunch per this 538 article. Surely more balance is needed here, and that article I just linked to has graded other polling agencies much higher in accuracy. Perhaps a couple from there are worth considering as candidates to replace NYT/Sienna and Alaskan Survey Research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, we've always included all polls listed by reliable third party aggregators. Wikipedia does not evaluate the methodology of polls, and we shouldn't be picking some polls to include while excluding others. We definitely shouldn't remove highly reputable polls such as NYT/Sienna, which is A+ rated by FiveThirtyEight. As for the external links, those are being used as citations. The most important point here, though, is that there's precedent for including polls this way across all election articles on Wikipedia. Consistency in how we include polling data needs to be maintained across the 2020 U.S. elections series. If you or other editors want to change the established consensus, then you should start an RfC at Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 05:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the polls on this page are listed at FiveThirtyEight and the links to Twitter and Facebook were taken directly from FiveThirtyEight. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 05:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This format for polling is consistent with most every election article around the world. All polls are generally included, even if there is a partisan client. As you noted, the widely used, consistent format does not violate ELLIST but putting the link in a separate column is simply absurd: the website and sponsor name can share a column so there doesn't need to be just [1] [2]-type links! You would need to bring this up at the central elections wikiproject if you have concerns. There is literally nothing wrong with linking to social media sites if the profile itself is run by a reliable source. The article is from 2016: if these other pollsters have polled this year they should be included too, but you're out of your mind if they should "replace" others with no basis whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 06:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second Reywas92's suggestion to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums since this would be a change affecting all election articles with polls. I hadn't thought of that when I suggested Talk:Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 06:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tartan357, for providing the aggregator link these polls were taken from. That helps put the poll selection in perspective. I typically work in film articles that deal with a different type of aggregation (critic scores).
As for established consensus, are you referring to the weakest form of editing consensus, or have there been previous discussions and/or RfC's about the way the polls are presented? Just curious. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of polls and external links in tables; I'm simply weighing in here from a neutral perspective. Obviously WP:ELLIST shows an alternative way to organize external links in tables, and there must be some precedence for doing it that way for it to exist in a guideline. No need to take this to an RfC at this stage. This is just a casual conversation among interested editors. If it were to gain traction here, then yes, it would be prudent to take it to the next level to get more widespread community feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, honestly, I don't know if there was a formal discussion. If there wasn't one, then there's a pretty long-running silent consensus. All I know is that polls are presented this way in every election article on Wikipedia, and that's been the case for at least a year (since I got involved). This is the first objection I've seen to it in all that time. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 06:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but just so it's clear, I presented both sides of the issue as I saw it in my original post. I was simply making an observation and not really objecting. The water is less muddy to me now! Since the poll presentation in these articles can be satisfied under WP:ELLIST, then I have to agree we let sleeping dogs lie and move on. ;-) --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I didn't see the 538 source you provided cited anywhere in the article (unless I missed it). I'd think at the very least, having it cited in the polling section in some fashion would be a worthy improvement and good place to start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, the aggregators including FiveThirtyEight are listed in the predictions section immediately above the polling section. It links to FiveThirtyEight's prediction, though, which is different from (but based on) their poll aggregation page for the same race. I didn't choose that presentation and wouldn't object to it being changed, but it should be changed everywhere else for consistency if it is to be changed. The layout is pretty well standardized across election articles right now. I think one issue with citing the aggregators in the polling section is that editors are adding polls from any number of different aggregators, not just FiveThirtyEight.― Tartan357 (Talk) 06:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I missed that under predictions, and fair point about other aggregators being in the mix. I think my concerns have been addressed. Thanks again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska"