Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Event(s). United States: Mississippi Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance).

In light of conflict over who to include here, I'm removing the section itself, as it's all unsourced speculation. Comments? Ashdog137 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any recent article sources potential candidates. i went ahead and included this. while it's speculation, the two dem potential candidates themselves have indicated they're thinking about it, and the section is worthy of keeping in at this point. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as there's a source cited that actually speaks to it, that's good. I deleted it earlier because there wasn't even a source citation, which is required on Wikipedia. I haven't had a chance to review the edits yet, but I trust you've done a good job with it -- thanks for finding a source! Ashdog137 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this stage that only those considering running or declaring their candidacies should be included in the candidates' list. Speculation, even with citations, at this stage should not be included now that there are declared candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do me a favor... scroll up to the top of this vey talk page and read the template at the top. This is properly sorted material and it is not speculation to say they declined to file.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only applies if a person seriously considered running for office or ran for office, then decided not to run or withdrew from the race. It does not apply to third parties speculating if a person would be running for office or if a person was asked to run for office, briefly pondered, then declined the request or immediately declined the request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. As an historical document, who the papers specualted might run is still a notable element. Most documentaries I watch about historical events often say things like "it was speculated that so and so would run for the seat"... these are important facts and it's one way wikipedia can bring history to life in better and more interesting ways.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted arbitration request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Dr_who1975. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settled, for now

I've used my "special Admin voodoo" to restore the name of the article. (I.e., I'm an Admin, but it took nothing special.) It will be a special election regardless of when it is held. Even on November's election day, it will be a special election. Other federal elections are named "United States [body] special election in [state], [year]." (Admins are not referees or judges. Wikipedia is run by consensus.) —Markles 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) :With Respect... You're wrong.Elections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. -User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As per the merge discussion, the reason for not merging the 2 articles was because of the controversy, not because of which days they fall on. People need to keep that in mind. The special election is notable of an article its own and seperate because of the special and notable controversy surrounding it, ie:state law not being followed, it going to court, etc. The Wyoming special election has nothing controversial or spectacular about it.. it's not being challenged. The 2 are certainly distinct. I imagine that after the dust has settled and the court decides, the special election article will take another form surrounding the actual controversy itself rather than the election itself. -- ALLSTARecho 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC):Markles, are you talking about me moving United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 to Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn;t this discussion be on Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008... you're really confusing the hell out of me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really would've been nice if somebody responded to me last comment even if they disagree with it. It seems like nobody read it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus comments seem to speak for themselves. Sorry. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who's unilateral decision of placing external official campaign web sites next to the candidates' names instead of in the external links section does not match the prevailing format of other articles about U.S. senate campaigns having all external links, official campaign and third party web sites about the campaign, in the external links section. Check them out for yourself using the links at United States Senate elections, 2008. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which 3 sites with my format did you find... there's at least 6.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please also cite the wikipedia page that outlines a standard for election pages?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2008, United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate election in Oregon, 2008. Check out the other campaign articles. There is no set standard I found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A) Let's not start bandying about the phrase "unilateral." Not everything can be done ahead of time by committee and consensus. Be bold!—Markles 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• B) I agree with Steelbeard that campaign sites belong in External Links at the end.—Markles 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See ... I was being bold by adding it to the elections I added it to, I've already done it to the 5 House special elections pages and I was the one who did it to the other Mississippi page. Since I have now hit some opposition after being bold I think I need to gather concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. We should be bold, and make the edit. THEN if someone disagrees, we try to reach consensus.—Markles 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markles... that's exactly what I said in the line you responded to. I must have a problem makingmyself clear,--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (Right. Sorry - I'd misread what you'd written.—Markles 14:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's OK to be bold, but if changes are made to the bold entry which the bold poster objects to, don't revert and start an edit war, talk about it in the talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes- good point!—Markles 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree too... in fact it's pretty much what I did.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • While we can discuss official sites, i think we should not turn wikipedia into a campaign mud-slinging site. hence the link about the anti-wicker site should be removed. otherwise we have a free-for-all. let me know if you disagree.Journalist1983 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't Think the negative sites should necessarily go as an External Link on a candidates page itself (which why I haven;t reverted the site's removal from Wicker's page), but I have less of a problem with it going on the election page. There's all kinds of negativity and mud slinging that are a natural part of an election.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's a free standing web site, then I think it should be listed. If it's a blog-based page, I say no. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The threshold required to include a website is "Is it useful for the reader to go to the site in order to learn about this topic". WP:EL specifically discourages linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." My guess is that the typical mud-slinging site fits that bill. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, this means that the standalone web site must have material backed up by bonafide journalistic sources. Biased news sources (i.e. NewsMax Media) should not be included. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr who1975 (talk · contribs) insists on including purely speculative material in the article United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008. The passage is as follows:

Declined

• Mike Espy^[1]
• Harvey Johnson, Jr.^[1]
• Ray Mabus ^[1]

These are people who the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger speculated would be running for the 2008 Mississippi special election. These people never declared they are a candidate or were asked to run and declined the request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response:

• • Steelbeard is spinning the facts a little. Just to be clear... this information has been on this page for weeks and under the scrutiny of several experienced editors. The reality is that Steelbeard insists on removing them now that this election's filing deadline has passed but he didn't have a problem with the "speculative" nature of the information before.
  • As for the nature of the information: it is cited speculation from the Mississippi Clarion ledger, a respected newspaper. It is properly cited information about potential candidates for an upencoming election.
  • It is standard practice on election pages to put potential candidates into a declined section and leave them on the page once the filing deadline has past. Election pages in wikipedia are meant to be kept as historical documents and not merely a running tally of current events. There is a template at the very top of Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 this very discussion page and many other election pages that states this. Otherwise, we start to wonder what is the point of keeping an election page at all once the election is over?
  • The use of the word "declined" comes from the fact that they declined to file for the election in spite of speculation from the local media. If Steelbeard has a problem with the word "declined" then we can change it to something else, but he doesn't want to do that, he wants to remove the information entirely. --Dr who1975 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request for arbitration, which I've removed for the moment. If you can both give me a few minutes I'll review and make a few suggestions here shortly. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute that has become a little heated. This doesnt need WP:ARBCOM to fix the problem as it hasnt escalated out of control. Firstly, we need more discussion here. If the discussion here doesnt work, we can start a request for comment.

This isnt an topical I spend much time in, so I'll just throw a few idea's in to begin with. These will be my uninformed opinions to kick start some discussion. Everyone, feel free to yell at me; dont yell at each other :-)

The candidates section should reflect those that are currently candidates. Mentioning "Declined" candidates is historically relevant, and should be removed from the article if they are sourced and were significant. In this case they appear to have been semi-serious contenders, so I think they should be mentioned. However as the race goes on, their importance diminishes. How about we note them in the text further down, or in a separate section below the current candidates section ? John Vandenberg (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'd be curious to see what Stealbeard thinks of your suggestion... if he has any specific ideas for the page beyond simply removing the information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the persons involved never considered themselves candidates, they should be removed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth having, as it often gives some useful context in the choice of a particular nominee. Rebecca (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the points from the arbitration page to the top of this section... I give a nice 4 point summary of my position in response to Steelbeard's dispute.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cant reliably know whether these declined candidates ever considered themselves candidates. Maybe when talking to their family at their BBQ they did really seriously consider it? Who knows? What we do know is that the media speculated about it. AFAICS, these persons are now of minor relevance to the current race, so we should avoid giving those names prominence. I've hacked at moving those from the "Candidates" section to the "Background" section. 03:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)

I agree with Jayvdb. If these persons had announced that they were running and then withdrew, that would be worth noting. That some pundits speculated that these persons might run is largely irrelevant, unless there happens to be some documented story about behind the scenes deal-making/arm-twisting/etc. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Did you see this above:

The use of the word "declined" comes from the fact that they declined to file for the election in spite of speculation from the local media. If Steelbeard has a problem with the word "declined" then we can change it to something else, but he doesn't want to do that, he wants to remove the information entirely.
If you have a problem with the word "declined" then we can use a different term.

• • In any event... still not a fan of the current revision with the speculated names in the text...I really liked the bullet points. However,I will leave it alone.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "they declined", did they actually actively decline - did they file some paper work to say that they decline running? John Vandenberg (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No... I just mean declined as in they didn't do it. For the 10th time... I'm open to using different terminology. Any suggestions?--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the only source is some random speculation that the persons might have been considering a candidacy, that is not worth noting, even under the heading of "declined". If there is some reliable source saying that the persons themselves were actively interested in running and then later declined to run, then perhaps it is worth mentioning. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarion Ledger is a respected newspaper... in any event... this topic is settled.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the newspaper writers and editors speculated about who may be running without consulting with the persons the speculation is about. That alone is the reason it rates only a minor mention and must not be given prominance and equal footing with the actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The writer(s) of a single newspaper article speculating about who might run in not noteworthy. If there were some statements from the individuals themselves, that would be a different matter. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just the clarion ledger speculating, I'mpretty sure there's a New York times and AP article out there. You seem to want to keep discussing this... here's another clarion ledger article that says "Former Gov. Ray Mabus, also a Democrat, has reportedly told several people he is not running." [1]. Should I add Mabus back ro the "declined" category now or can we drop this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. no NY TImes or AP... here's a yahoo news story [2] that mentions Espy, Mabus, and Mike Moore (US politician). I also disagree that multiple sources are necessary but in any event.. there you go.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the Congressional Quarterly whose CQ Politics web site gives national political news and commentaries. Mike Moore said no and it was pure speculation about Mike Espy and Ray Mabus. Again, not really worthy of prominance in the article at this stage. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Mike Moore declined? (you don't have to answer that) In any event, thank you for leaving Jayvdb's compromise suggestion on the page... I know you still do not agree with it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the additional source that you give is still only some speculative punditry about who might run. It says nothing about whether the persons were seriously considering becoming candidates. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We keep rehashing points we've already been over, let me make myself clear... accodring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball....

• "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable"
• "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics."

This is not simply a wikipedia guideline... it's policy.

• The information in question is verified speculation about a notable event which is perfectly OK. I can only assume you did not know that this was allowed in wikipdeia and I apologize for not explaining it as clearly before.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could also argue that it's not speculation since the filing deadline has past... it's actually historical information about speculation on an election when it was a future event... no different than information speculating that Mitt Romeny or Rudolph Guiliani would be the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited speculation may be appropriate for future election cycles, but for this election year, as actual candidates emerge and filing deadlines pass, all early speculation has to take a back seat to talking more about the actual candidates. Here's an example: United States Senate election in Michigan, 2008. As the filing deadline for the Michigan senate race isn't until May, speculation may be allowed. But in this instance, there are opponents who are either considering or working on running for office so this is not speculation. But in either case, a person can only be listed as a candidate if he or she has actually filed to be a candidate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Steelbeard's points above (and I'm OK with how Jayvdb presented the material as background). The problem I have with adding persons based on third party speculative comments to a list of Declined candidates is that the person becomes a member of the list through no action of their own. Some talking heads speculate that so and so might run or they might be a good candidate, and if the person does absolutely nothing, then they go onto the declined list?!?! Seems that such speculative characterizations would fail WP:BLP for most cases unless directly attributed to whomever is doing the speculating. older ≠ wiser 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "declined" candidates has been condensed into one, less prominent, sentence, it's actually been like that for 3 days. The word "declined" is also not used in this sentence.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um right. Which is why I said I'm OK with how Jayvdb presented the material as background. My comments were more in regards to the edits at the root of this dispute such as [3] and your statements above which use a passive definition of "declined" such that persons can be added to that list (of Declined candidates) through no action of their own simply by pundits making speculative statements about them as possible candidates. I don't think that is warranted in this or any article. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iQHtoDdq to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002646810

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing two pics of the Dem candidate but not one picture from the Republican victor. And you wonder about the term left-wing bias? I dont.

62.226.87.126 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]