Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-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 United States Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election, there was a subsection in the Democratic Party section called "Publicly expressed interest." It was deleted by User:ALPolitico (talk) who called the section unnecessary. I think it is important to differentiate candidates who are actively exploring a run for Governor from candidates whose names get thrown around. Chris Kennedy and Ameya Pawar have hired staff.(1) This is different than someone's blog post on Barack Obama as a potential candidate for Governor.(2) It is unintentionally misleading to have them in the same category of "potential." One is actively exploring. The other is a brainstorm.

The article 2020 United States presidential election makes this differentiation. In the Republican section, they differentiate based on Declared minor candidates, Candidates who have publicly expressed interest and Speculative candidates. In the Democratic section they differentiate between "Candidates who have publicly expressed interest" and "Speculative candidates."

I have reached out to User:ALPolitico about this and hope to be able to create some clarification between those with a stated interest who are actively exploring and those who are merely speculative.

Posted by: MPEN320 (My Talk Page) 19:35, 29 December (CT)

I noticed that Alex Paterakis is missing from the list of declared candidates for the Democratic primary for governor. It should be restored, but I see no supporting evidence on why it was removed in the first place. Website is still featured in External links, but thought I still note that there are five candidates on record running for the nomination. Thanks. Himnmedia2017 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the site that you have for Bob Daiber is wrong as when I click on the link, I'm not able to access anything and it mentions something like the connection being closed. I think it should be checked to make sure that the site is right.

65.214.67.173 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election, under Third Party and Independents, you only have Randy Stufflebeam from the Constitution Party as a candidate and nobody else. There have been numerous edits to include the three candidates vying for the Libertarian Party nomination, but as usual, those edits get taken down without valid reasoning. Plus, the Constitution Party fails to get on the ballot anyway, so why include them and not the declared Libertarian candidates? Himnmedia2017 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to have the the sentence about the Green Party on this page, which is about 2018 Illinois Gubernatorial Election. The single sentence simply serves to disparage a party which is not even on the 2018 ballot. The disparaging statement has nothing, again, to do with the 2018 election. Shall we collect all parties and put in a disparaging statement about how they haven't qualified on the ballot? What purpose could this serve? I've removed the statement as it is totally irrelevant to a discussion on the 2018 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyGeek61 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are reports of fundraising totals (covered by secondary sources) considered relevant information for this page, or not? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One contributor has an issue with the We Ask America polls. This user, while undoubtedly a Kennedy supporter making pro-Kennedy edits, has raised an issue that requires consensus. I would like to see what issues anyone else has. My vote is to Keep. Additional information to justify my vote. We Ask America is used in the following articles, which had active edits during the elections; 2014 United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 Illinois gubernatorial election, and 2014 Illinois gubernatorial election. Even Survey Monkey commissioned polls are shown on 2016 United States Senate election in Illinois. --Mpen320 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no-brainer. We Ask America is a legitimate pollster, Capitol Fax is a legitimate tipsheet; there's no reason not to include it. Mélencron (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did note on my talk page User_talk:Mpen320#IL_Gov_Race that I am open to disclosing the We Ask America poll requires a subscription or some sort of disclaimer like that.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Subscription required}} exists for that. But what is it that requires a subscription here? The Capitol Fax article is published openly on both its own site and Crain's Chicago Business. --Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entry somewhere (and I forget which) that says "cross tabs are available to subscribers." I thought that might be a concern.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some thoughts on this:
  1. This poll should probably be labeled as "Capitol Fax/We Ask America". Capitol Fax isn't just the Wikipedia source; it's the news organization that sponsored the poll.
  2. We Ask America is owned by the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, a Republican-supporting lobbying group who most likely would like to see the Democratic nominee to be whoever Bruce Rauner can most easily defeat. But if one were to buy into the theory that the IMA would slant the We Ask America polls, then the same political "wisdom" right now would be that Rauner doesn't want to go up against Pritzker, so a Republican-slanted poll would want to underestimate Pritzker.
  3. Capitol Fax is owned by a long-time journalist and isn't known for taking sides; I don't think it would sponsor the poll unless the poll was reliably run.
  4. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ shows that We Ask America (not joint with Capitol Fax) is used by FiveThirtyEight as a polling source with a "C" rating and 83% of the pre-Trump races called correctly. (Both a "C" and 83% are higher than, for example, the well-known Zogby polls.) As for the other two (now-ancient by polling standards) polls: FiveThirtyEight gives Garin-Hart-Yang a "B+" and 86% of the races correct. And then there is the liberal-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (with Democracy Corps, which has a shared co-founder) has a "B-" but only called 49%(!) of the races correctly.
  5. Does Wikipedia have a history of discarding polls from recognized pollsters unless the citations to the methodology are available? Should we be allowing polls like GQR that show the methodology of their slightly-worse-than-random ability to call elections, and exclude other polls that don't show this particular poll's methodology but are from a moderately-reliable polling organization that have the only timely survey data?
  6. Maybe there's no reason to have any of these polls: Two are too old to be meaningful, and just one recent poll, partiuclarly without what confidence rate the margin of error is at, might be meaningless without a second poll for confirmation. --Closeapple (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there are a lot of endorsements that are trivial. I am not saying an endorsements needs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are some that make sense to me such as local affiliates of national organizations (e.g. Indo-American Democratic Organization and College Democrats at Illinois State University for Biss, those listed under "Individuals" for Pritzker) and other individuals who might only be of "local significance" (e.g. Lori E. Lightfoot for Kennedy). However, there are a lot of the organizations that I feel venture into Namechecking that gives undue weight. Wikipedia seeks to avoid undue weight per Wikipedia:Endorsements My proposal is that if there is not a near direct tie to a notable organization then the name be removed. Local chapters and officers of local affiliates of national organizations or local elected officials of a jurisdiction that has a Wikipedia page would stay, but random five person organizations would go.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an individual, they should have an article (or be notable enough to merit one), unless they're a chair of a party within a county; if it's an organization, then it should have an existing article (or be notable enough to merit one). I won't object to the removal of individuals or organizations that don't meet this threshold. Mélencron (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in UK, where we don't do political endorsements. IMO, on general Wiki principles: only include endorsers where there is a bluelink on the line where readers can find information relevant to the article; in particular, about the political stance of a person or organisation. Non-notable people should not be listed. That includes non-notable elected officials, members of party chapters, company executives, and so on. That said, I wouldn't object to redlinks where there is a prima facie case for notability. Narky Blert (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only reservation about this is that as of now I anticipate one candidate losing a significantly larger number of endorsements than the other candidates. I don't want to cause an edit war. Also, I feel in the context of the article local organizations matter enough in a statewide election provided they have some other tie to Wikipedia. For example, not every Committeemen and Committeewomen meets WP:Notablity, but there is an article Committeemen and Committeewomen (Cook County, Illinois), all of the committeemen/committeewomen are listed in Template:Cook county democratic committeemen, and their endorsement carries sway in the election. Additionally, how different Republican and Democratic organizations endorse is valuable to understand the context of the primary.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committeemen and Committeewomen (Cook County, Illinois) fits my criterion for inclusion – relevant information. I learnt something from that link. Narky Blert (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mpen320, why did you delete the College Democrat chapter endorsements? College Democrat chapters (and College Democrats in general) are hugely important for campaigns—college students are the engines that campaigns run on. I understand some of the groups that were removed (e.g. BlackRoots Resistance & Network 49), even though they do hold some sway in the primary, but College Democrats are a significant force in Democratic electoral politics both because of their labor for candidates and the power of college students as a voting bloc.--Dsf8497 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page that contains links to various newspaper endorsements. SecretName101 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily Chronical endorsement of Pritzker SecretName101 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Jackson was endorsed by the Families Civil Liberties Union on June 11.

• Source</ref>Himnmedia2017 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added Kash Jackson to the infobox. The reason I did so is that a lot has changed in the 4 years since the last gubernatorial election. For one, the Libertarian Party is now one of the fastest growing political parties (if not the fastest) in the US. By contrast, the Republican Party and Democrat Party parties are shrinking. The Libertarian Party of Illinois, in particular, has added numerous new chapters in the state. Further, in the last Presidential candidate, the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson received the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune[1], the most popular and prestigious newspaper in the entire state and Kash Jackson has been receiving major media coverage in Illinois. For example, Kash Jackson was just on 560 AM[2] only a few days ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Jackson's candidacy was premature. He is not yet on the ballot yet. The filing period for non-major party candidates is June 18, 2018 – June 25, 2018. The Libertarian Party still needs to collect signatures and submit them to the Board of Elections. Thus, while the convention has nominated Jackson, he is not yet on the ballot. More information is on page ii of the 2018 Candidate Guide (Page 6 of 76 on the PDF).--Mpen320 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can revisit when Jackson is on the ballot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how the article should handle other nominees from new parties and/or independents. Do you have any thoughts?--Mpen320 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Illinois has notoriously difficult requirements for third-parties and independents to get on the ballot. (Signature requirements are 3 times higher for third-parties/independents than for Democrats and Republicans.) The Libertarians are big enough that they should be able to meet that requirement. The Greens aren't running anyone on a state level basis. The only other third-party worth speaking of is probably the Constitution Party but I don't think they can meet the signature requirements. So, I guess the major factor would be whether or not you're on the ballot. Are there any other parties or independents that are running? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the most up to date candidate listing I know of. Kash Jackson and Sam McCann are the only two I can think of who would be able to get on the ballot if the Greens aren't running anyone. Also, floored the Green Party isn't running anyone for anything this time around. You'd think they could hit 5% if they ran someone for Secretary of State or Treasurer.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We get the fact you love the libertarian party but stop editing it as a major party when in most instances it can barely meet the 5% required to list it as such. The two-party system is here to stay for a while.Anticitizen 98 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm to delete article content, I want to point out that we've discussed this since April and reached consensus. Of course, consensus can change but I would ask you to follow WP:BRD. You've WP:BOLDly removed the content and your edit has been reverted. As for the merit of your edit, according to this poll,[3] 26% support third-party candidates and 11% are undecided.[4] Plus, the fact that all 4 candidates will be on the ballot equally. There is no reason to give readers the false impression that there are only two candidates that are running. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anticitizen 98: Can you please stop edit-warring[5][6][7][8][9][10] and obtain consensus before making contentious changes? The article has been stable for months. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anticitizen 98: Not only did you fail to address any of the points raised here, you continue to edit-war.[11] Can you please self-revert and discuss your changes on the talk page first? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Kelly has announced his withdrawal and endorsement of McCann. SecretName101 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional update needed: Victory Research poll which includes Jackson and McCann conducted June 26-28, 2018: [12] Himnmedia2017 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added. Mélencron (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't count as major parties unless they achieve 5% of the vote. See the 2006 gubernatorial election for an actual example of a party achieving major status.Anticitizen 98 (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who made the initial post, but I strongly disagree. Jackson and McCann are ballot-qualified. They have as much a right to be there as anyone else who's been ballot-qualified. Stop with this censorship bullshit. Himnmedia2017 (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my problem you know nothing about the states electoral system. You are obliged to change any party as major that passes the margin after the election but not before.Anticitizen 98 (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative and Libertarian Parties have been properly formed under IL law as of 6/25/2018 and will maintain their status if they get 5% of the vote. If they fail to reach 5% in the general election, they could be removed from the infobox then. Also, how exactly does any independent candidate ever appear in the infobox, as they have no party whatsoever? --24.12.219.61 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the ballot does not equate to major status, and you can be listed as an independent, pretty simple. See the Alaska gubernatorial election as an example. Also, the parties had not previously earned 5% so should not be listed as before the results can confirm whether they pass. Anticitizen 98 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason an Independent is present in the infobox for 2018 Alaska gubernatorial election is because the incumbent Governor Bill Walker is an actual independent.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 candidates in the infobox will appear on the ballot without any distinction. As far as I know there is no policy which says candidates of "new" parties don't get included in the infobox. Just by looking around I found at least two examples of candidates with no party (independents) appearing in the infobox on a state-level election. As far as I can tell, the justification used to remove them is subjective at best. --Eliyak T·C 03:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the consensus is then so be it. Most articles remove parties with a low percentage as being irrelevant to the main subject of the article and I think 5% is a fair percentage to qualify.Anticitizen 98 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: You deleted content saying, "I think the standard for including third parties in the infobox (prior to the election) is 5% or more in at least three polls".[13] Can you point me to which policy or guideline says this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: You just deleted content again saying, "Still no notable reason to include third parties in the infobox pre-election."[14] I'm not sure I follow your logic. Notability refers to an article as a whole. If you meant to say verifiable, the content is sourced to reliable sources. If you meant to say weight, all 4 names will appear on the ballot equally and without distinction, and have been covered extensively by reliable sources.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] If you meant something else, then I have no idea what you're talking about. In any case, can you please participate in the talk page discussion before deleting content again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: This is the third-time you've reverted this content and you have yet to make a single post on the article talk page. [33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my personal talk page, you need to use the ping function if you want me to notice that you're invoking me. Like so @A Quest For Knowledge:. Please avail yourself of this function in the future.

You ask me to point to a "policy or guideline" that precludes including third parties. There isn't an explicit policy, but it's a well-known consensus among editors of elections pages. See Talk:2018 Maine gubernatorial election#Inclusion of Hayes and Caron in infobox prior to polling for a good use of its application, and you can see it discussed ad nauseum on Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Illinois#5% rule?, as well as voted on here. Reading these discussions, I can see a basis for including McCann in the infobox at this time but not Jackson, who has only been included in one poll, and only garnered 2%.

Since "documentation" was a big part of your argument I feel I should say: Being talked about in the news is not a reason to include candidates in an infobox. We are an encyclopedia, not a news aggregation. I will restore McCann to the infobox, seeing as he has gotten 5% in this latest poll, hopefully you see that as a worthwhile compromise. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: Thanks, but it's not really a compromise since it doesn't address any of the reasons why all 4 candidates should be in the info box. First, it's a 4-way race, not a 2 or 3-way race. All 4 candidates will appear on the ballot equally and without distinction. By picking and choosing which candidates appear in the info box, we are giving readers a distorted picture of who is running for governor. Our job as editors is to inform our readers, not misinform. Withholding information is a form of misinformation. Second, the fact that all 4 candidates have received wide-spread coverage by reliable sources is a reason to include all 4 candidates. Our job as editors is to faithfully report on what reliable sources are saying about the Governor's race. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: please use the ping function. Respectfully, no it's not a 4-way race. Just because there are four names on the ballot does not make it anything more than a two-way race. It's not a distortion to focus on the only two candidates who have a function chance of winning in a first-past-the-post system. And it's not withholding anything, since McCann and Jackson are still covered in the article. It just contextualizes the effect that they will have on the election, which will be minor. If you're going to have a hard 4-candidate ultimatum on the subject then there is no more discussion needed. We will need to bring in more politics editors in to find a consensus. But if that's the tack you're going to take we will have to revert to the previous consensus in the mean time, which is no minor parties in the infobox. Nevermore27 (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: You should be checking the talk page anyway. Hell, you should have been the one to start the discussion, not me. You are the one making the contentious changes. If you want to make changes to the article, the burden is on you to justify those changes. So far, you have not met this burden. We've been discussing this on the article talk page since April. The existing consensus is to include all 4 candidates in the info box. Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: I will not, because I am following the previous consensus that has existed since 2008. Consensus is not found in one discussion by 5 people. Nevermore27 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While 5% is a good arbitrary standard, it is still arbitrary. It might be the right number, but that hasn't been decided. There needs to be a standard developed for all articles, that develops sufficient consensus, and then is copied to a central MOS-style page for widespread use. Just because some ad hoc standard works for a single election doens't make it a good standard Wikipedia-wide. Unforetunely, too many readers and editors wrongly believe that Wikipedia is a definitive source on elections: that candidate inclusion is an endorsement and that it will somehow affect election outcome. Let's look at elections from foreign countries, for example, decades or even a century ago: does it matter to you if a specific candidate is included if you have no knowledge or interest in the outcome? That's how you decide current local elections, too. Remove your own biases and interests (known and unknown) and then decide. —GoldRingChip 12:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential policy (the lack of which after 10 years of "consensus" says something on its own) might involve notability via coverage in reliable sources, as was actually referenced in a previous removal of Jackson and McCann. That standard has been met in this case, which is often not true for alternative candidates. @Nevermore27: I have reverted to the previous consensus for *this page* while we discuss. --Eliyak T·C 12:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standard should be who's ever on the ballot. Keep in mind that Illinois has some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. In order to get on the ballot, third-parties have to submit 5 times as many signatures as the Democrats and Republicans. So, it's very difficult to get on the ballot in Illinois. That's why the Green and the Constitution parties didn't even try. Only the Libertarian party is big enough to accomplish this. Even McCann's Conservative Party isn't big enough to meet the requirement on its own. They relied on money from Pritzker's people to pay petitioners to meet the signature requirements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care anymore. Go ahead and run this page like your personal fiefdom. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge Please don't argue in bad faith. You're simply ignoring what Nevermore is saying. Nevermore is trying to explain to you that Wikipedia works through consensus, and that the 5% rule was arrived at via countless hours of discussion by many editors. You may think the standard should be whoever is on the ballot, but Wikipedia doesn't belong to you and you should engage in discussions with other editors if you want to change the current consensus -- not just try to overrule people who disagree with you.

If you're wondering why the 5% rule exists, IIRC it has to do with WP:NPOV. This is one of Wikipedia's most important policies -- that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. As the policy clearly states, giving something undue weight counts as a type of bias. Presenting a candidate that is support by 2% of the electorate as just as important as a candidate that gets 55% of the vote clearly seems like undue weight to me, and that's why I agree with the current consensus. --4idaho (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@4idaho: First, what makes you think that I'm arguing in bad faith? Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as ignoring them. I believe that I've addressed every issue that has been brought up here. If you feel that I've ignored or missed something, please let me know and I'll try to address it. Second, as best I can tell, there is no such thing as a 5% rule. We need not follow rules that doesn't exist. Third, the consensus on this article is to include all candidates on the ballot in the info box. We've discussed this since April. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't apply to one article at a time. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this shit is getting incredibly old. Who's the spineless individual who keeps removing information from the infobox, because they need removal from the community. As for the content in the infobox is concerned, my vote is to INCLUDE all ballot qualified candidates and to hell with the consequences of the triggered. Himnmedia2017 (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the exact opposite of consensus building. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing candidates from the infobox in advance of resolving the discussion is not exactly consensus building. --Eliyak T·C 15:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing isn't consensus building either, Nevermore27.[34][35][36][37][38][39] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those really counts as canvassing, the rest was just contacting other politics editors I know to ask for their input, without knowing what that input would be. I will also cop to not knowing the was such a policy.

• Here's a question, why is it so important to include "all ballot-qualified candidates" here, for Illinois, but not on any of the other gubernatorial elections pages, let alone all the elections pages for this year? Consistency and continuity matter. I think you know I am not inclined to agree with your reading of policy so I'm not encouraging you to change them all, but I am curious why it matters to you so much here but not elsewhere. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I live in Illinois, so it's the election I'm most familiar with. Every state has its own ballot access laws. Illinois, for example, has some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. In order to get on the ballot in Illinois, third-parties have to submit 5(!) times as many signatures as the Democrats and Republicans. And they're given a very small time frame in which to collect the signatures. So, it's very difficult to get on the ballot in Illinois. That's why the Green and the Constitution parties didn't even try this election. Only the Libertarian party is big enough to accomplish this. Even McCann's Conservative Party isn't big enough to meet the requirement on its own. They relied on money from Pritzker's people to pay petitioners to meet the signature requirements. There are 50 states in the US and each one has its own unique laws. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that there is a Wikipedia tradition of including candidates who have received 5% in polling, or possibly the party receiving 5% in a previous election. That's not clear to me because it's not documented as far as I could find except on various Talk pages, some of which User:Nevermore27 linked above, where it's also been disputed. It's confusing and contentious in part because there is no WP policy or official documentation. The issue with including non-major party candidates would seem to be one of undue weight and/or crowding the infobox. As I suggested above, a standard could be coverage of the candidate in multiple reliable sources as the main topic. --Eliyak T·C 12:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @A Quest For Knowledge: with all due respect, the ballot access laws really don't mean anything as to whether or not a party should be included in the infobox. WP:NPOV, as has been cited above, implies that we shouldn't be giving candidates or parties undue weight when they aren't really going to be a factor in the result. There has been a consensus for a long time to only include minor parties in an infobox post election, and to my mind it only seems logical to apply that to the pre-election as well. Just as important if not more so is a consistency question. If we are to accept your preferred outcome as a new consensus, then it should really apply to all elections articles, not just one. How many signatures a party or individual needs to submit is irrelevant; as you have said more than once (in so many words): if they're on the ballot, they should be in the infobox. If this is the case, it would need to be the case for all U.S. elections for the sake of consistency. But I've never seen you argue for that. I'm also curious as to why the Libertarian and Conservative parties get this treatment, but not the independent candidate. There are a lot of holes in your theory of the case. Not neutral and inconsistent. This is why I'm opposed to your theory. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that different states have different laws, and coming up with a one-size-fits-all solution may difficult, if not impossible. Massachusetts, for example, has ranked voting. How do we handle that? For Illinois, I am saying that we should present the candidates that are on the ballot. Also, please stop making false claims about consensus. As best as I can tell, there is no such policy or guideline, and you can point to other articles as examples, but that's meaningless unless consensus was achieved naturally and organically. If this article is any example, it appears that edit-warring and canvassing are standard operating procedures around these parts. That is not consensus in any meaningful sense of the term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Maine that has RCV, not Massachusetts. Also, false? You keep bringing up "consensus" and "policy" and "guideline" as if they're synonyms, but they're not. The 5% "rule" for post-election is a more or less ironclad consensus that has been upheld time and time again for going on 10 years. Please point out to me any elections article where your theory wins the day. You are attempting to foist your personal views onto one piece of a whole with no regard for consistency or neutrality. Ballot access laws are not the point. Your theory, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be "on the ballot, in the infobox". I don't think that's workable. You also didn't even mention my concern that you care that Jackson and McCann are in the infobox but no such concern for the independent candidate, Walls. Where's the consistency? Nevermore27 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, whether it's Maine or Massachusetts, my point is the same.

No, "consensus" and "policy" and "guideline" are not synonyms. Either you're attacking a strawman or you don't understand what I'm saying. Regardless, there is no such thing as a "5% rule". If there is, it should be easy for you to point us to the policy or guideline that says this. The fact that you are unable to do so just reinforces my impression that you are referencing a rule that doesn't exist.

So-called "consensus" on other articles doesn't affect this article. Another editor, Ponyo, told you this on your talk page. Even if it did, did this so-called "consensus" emerge naturally through normal editing or through edit-warring and canvassing?

Why don't you think 4 candidates in the info box isn't workable? There's 4 in it right now, and it looks fine. And we've received no complaints from readers that there are too many candidates in the infobox. If there were 20 candidates, I would agree that would be too many. But since there are only 4, that's a relatively small number. Disk space is cheap, so there's no reason to give readers an incomplete picture.

Finally, I don't know who Walls is. Whoever they are, they're not on the ballot, so there's no inconsistency. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @A Quest for Knowledge: Linking to my personal talk page is highly inappropriate. Delete that reference immediately and apologize.

I have never said that the 5% "rule" is a rule. Hence why I've been putting it in quote all this time. But it is a consensus. And when an article like this one is one part of a larger whole I think we should value continuity across those articles. So if you're going to insist that we put all ballot-qualified candidates in the infobox (which includes an Independent, look at the results box), we should do it for all elections articles. And I've made it clear I don't think that's a good standard. Nevermore27 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not inappropriate. Where did you get that idea? In any case, you didn't address anything I said. So, I don't know how you expect to convince me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porting conversations from a personal talk page is bad form and I don't appreciate it, and I feel it's inappropriate. I think one thing that has been made abundantly clear is that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything, so I don't see the point in engaging further. It appears a vote has been started, so discussion is over. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: Again, where did you get that idea? Can you point me to a policy or guideline that backs you up? In any case, consensus is not a vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't have to be a policy or guideline for you to realize it's kind of a shit thing to do, Jesus Christ Nevermore27 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not kind of a shit thing to include candidates in the infobox when there is no policy against it. Frankly the opposite is true.--Eliyak T·C 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even close to what I'm referring to. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fully protected the article for 2 days to stop the edit warring. During that time you should seek outside information as to what is Wikipedia's policy or tradition: to include all ballot qualified candidates as some here are saying, or to include only candidates who are polling 5% or above as others are saying. One or the other is almost certainly the Wikipedia style for such articles. If you can't find an actual guideline, or reach consensus among yourselves without one, you could look at other "2018 gubernatorial election" articles and see how it has been done. You might also look to see what order the candidates' names are usually listed. Please work it out in the next two days and have consensus by the time the protection expires. (BTW I am sure that half of you will object that I protected the wrong version. That's what happens when there is edit warring; see WP:WRONG.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote No. I would be willing to relax this condition based on the presence of independents in the infobox in the Kansas and Rhode Island articles where the independents are polling at greater than 10% and have a repeated history of success as independent candidates. I think that 10% should be the barrier because while 5% is notable for post-election finishes, the odds of anyone polling at 5% before political scientists have found that partisan reflexes start to kick in isn't going to stay in that box post-election.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've mostly been ignoring this discussion for now, but I'll note that almost all of the editors who object to this typically have a vested interest (either as openly Libertarian/Green Party supporters), which I'm not surprised by. My view of the 5% threshold is mainly that the infobox is inherently meant to be a summary of the main candidates as opposed to an exhaustive list, and that the post-election consensus should generally applied to the pre-election one as consistently as possible (i.e., by determining the inclusion of a candidate in the infobox based on either the past performance of the party, polling, or a completely subjective common-sense judgment about whether a third-party candidate should be included in the infobox – e.g., in the Kansas gubernatorial race, where Orman did not run in the preceding election and there was no polling until recently, but had already performed well in the 2014 Senate race and was widely considered a major candidate based on the level of media coverage his candidacy attracted/prior performance/fundraising/other factors.)

Mostly, applying a 5% threshold prevents exhaustive listing of all candidates in races where thresholds to ballot access are lower. If you're to ask me which candidates belong in the infobox here, I'd say Rauner, Pritzker, and McCann (with McCann on the basis of his polling and media coverage for his candidacy). In some instances, as here, there's ambiguity as to which third parties to include, especially if they haven't previously been on the ballot and would leap ahead of those that have been in the past. However, there's no history of higher Libertarian performance (only Greens, who didn't put forth a candidate despite it being a ripe environment for them) in Illinois, and Jackson has not polled above 5% in the past either. The only thing that he has going for him is potential prior notability (i.e., if an individual is notable enough for an article), but it's also clear from past elections that just because an individual is notable to run (e.g. Ariana Huffington) doesn't mean that their electoral performance is will be significant (often is the case for activists/actors/other civil society figures. Also, from what I can tell, Kash Jackson doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG at the moment, either; outside of his candidacy (WP:NPOL), "Restoring Freedom" is the only notable thing associated with him, and the only non-election articles related to that that I can find are this and this, which are not sufficient to prove notability under WP:GNG.

tl;dr: Rauner, Pritzker, McCann. Jackson doesn't appear to be a notable individual. Not a POV issue (I don't have any particular animosity towards third parties) as the threshold is meant to prevent exhaustive listing of candidates in what's inherently meant to be a summary of the main candidates, while exhaustive listings are further down in the article and not omitted in any case. There exists consensus for the 5% rule post-election, inconclusive with regard to applying it pre-election, though that's effectively how it's applied in practice at this current point in time, and you shouldn't pretend you're a disinterested editor here. (Also, this talk page keeps popping up on my watchlist because of the back-and-forth mostly between Nevermore and AQFN – how about just opening a RfC on which candidates to include in the infobox on this particular article? Nevermore is in the wrong in claiming that there can't be a consensus unique to this article, and what AQFN is mostly concerned about is which candidates to include, particularly Jackson.) Mélencron (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I never said there can't be a article-unique consensus, but to be fair I don't think there should be one either. U.S. elections articles are not individual articles, they're parts of a whole. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mélencron: Just to clarify, I think all candidates on the ballot should be in the infobox, not just Jackson but McCann, Pritzker and Rauner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: But there is no such policy or guideline, correct? Can you at least admit that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend I don't have an interest in Kash Jackson's candidacy, but I certainly have no problem including McCann or any other candidate who meets a particular standard, whatever that may be. As far as I can see, it's entirely subjective and there is no standard. I would also point out that the vote @Nevermore27: references above refers to including candidates after an election based on performance in that election, and does not apply here (yet). At this time excluding candidates who are on the ballot and have received dedicated coverage (Rauner, Pritzker, Jackson and McCann) would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is WP policy. I will also argue that excluding candidates based on party performance is not consistent, since independent candidates would obviously not be excluded on those grounds.--Eliyak T·C 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For formality's sake, though it should be clear, I vote No. To @Eliyak:'s point I don't think it should be applied to a party's past performance, since we are technically a republic, so it's not the party that's relevant. But I think we should be applying the 5% "rule" to this article i.e. Rauner, Pritzker and McCann should be included. Nevermore27 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging everyone who's contributed to this discussion so far, for fairness's sake: @Anticitizen 98: @Himnmedia2017: @GoldRingChip:. Also there was a near-identical discussion on Talk:2018 Ohio gubernatorial election, so I'm pinging everyone from that discussion as well. @Dael4: @Elephanthunter: @Power~enwiki: @Red Rock Canyon: @Bradv: @Richelieu94: @4idaho: Nevermore27 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that we've started a vote. If so, I vote yes. --Eliyak T·C 20:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nevermore27: @Elephanthunter: @Power~enwiki: @Red Rock Canyon: @Bradv: @Richelieu94: @4idaho: As I explained earlier in the Talk:2018 Ohio gubernatorial election page, This is an encyclopedia, every aspect of the issue needs covered. Leaving anyone out is not full coverage, image included. There should be no poll test since wikipedia is not defined as a democracy, it is an information service. Dael4 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mpen320 started the ball. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what people are voting on. Can you please start a new section for that? A recent poll shows Sam McCann at 10% and Kash Jackson at 1.1% [40]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: A Yes would keep the page as it is currently. A No would be going back to the 5% "rule" Nevermore27 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are going to end the 5% "rule" and include every candidate on the ballot in infoboxes, it should be done for all articles, not just this article. Doing otherwise would violate WP:NPOV. Furthermore, I do believe the 5% "rule" should be kept, as there must be some cut off, as some races have so many candidates or parties that the infobox would become ridiculously long. Imagine including all candidates on the ballot in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election in that article's infobox. The only exception to the 5% "rule" that I would support is including parties in parliamentary elections that win seats with less than 5% of the vote.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A Democrat-biased poll conducted by a liberal-biased organization is not a credible poll, power~enwiki. You wanna know who's credible in political polling? Gallup, Harris, Marist, Monmouth, Pew, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen, Zogby. Himnmedia2017 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In my opinion, we should go back to the 5% rule, but not based on the polls. We CANNOT include all third-parties candidates for all other elections in the Infobox. That would be really excessive. I think we should include the third-parties candidates in th Infobox if they get 5% of the vote in the general election. Waiting for official results, we should look if third-parties got 5% in previous elections. For example: Montana Senate race 2018: Libertarian candidate got 5% in 2012 Senate Montana election, so current Libertarian candidate is included in current 2018 Infobox. If he doesn't get 5% on november 6th 2018, he will be excluded. Richelieu94 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't address independent candidates. IMO the best approach is to look for coverage of each candidate in reliable sources. --Eliyak T·C 14:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if "coverage" just consists of a line at the end of the story saying "Candidate X is also on the ballot for Party Y." and that's it? That would be giving undue weight. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more specific. I'm referring to coverage of that individual for that election as a main topic of the article. --Eliyak T·C 17:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the following to the top of the general election polling table:

|-
| [https://www.scribd.com/document/385206628/IL-Gov-Illinois-Public-Opinion-Inc-D-July-2018 Illinois Public Opinion (D)]
| align=center| July 12, 2018
| align=center| 423
| align=center| ± 5.0%
| align=center| 26%
| {{party shading/Democratic}} align=center| '''39%'''
| align=center| 1%
| align=center| 10%
| align=center| –
| align=center| 23%

Mélencron (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Are polls from partisan pollsters usually included? --Eliyak T·C 03:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added after protection expired. And yes, polls from partisan pollsters, if they are reputable, are usually included with a disclaimer.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but pollsters without an established public history of poll results usually aren't. With well-operated pollsters, it usually has more to do with the accuracy reputation of the polling sponsor and pollster, than their politics: Some are very accurate; some might be accurate but skew one way or the other because of their input, but that can be accounted for statistically based on the poll's past performance. There are well-operated polls with politically-aligned sponsors and pollsters, and we just account for it by adding the sponsor leaning, as has been done in this article. For U.S. nationwide polling, there's usually plenty of information on which pollsters are well-established, and a lot of "common" knowledge (or at least assumptions) about what gets accurate results at a national level. For example, FiveThirtyEight is famous for its "poll of polls" and https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ lists its ratings of each pollster that goes into the FiveThirtyEight polls. But when you get down to the state level, a lot of the national assumptions (presidential years vs. midterm, national political identification) don't work, and often a state has its own combination of national and state pollsters with knowledge about that particular state. However, I don't see any immediate evidence that IPO, Inc. has a longstanding reputation yet; I could be wrong though. Does anyone else know IPO's actual performance history? I don't think that pollsters should be included if their polls aren't frequent enough to see a public history of predictive accuracy. --Closeapple (talk)

Up to this point, there is absolutely no guarantee that the independent ticket of William "Doc" Walls III and Jim Tobin will be on the ballot in the general election. Democrats challenged their ticket.^{[1] [2]}

The Illinois State Board of Elections schedules hearings at random and it is possible that it could be scheduled so late that the ticket won't beat certification in late August/early September.

Some early signs the ticket has given up:

• The campaign website is dead and reverts to a non-existent Shopify store. ^[3]
• Neither Walls nor Tobin have mentioned anything new regarding the general election or their challenge process. ^{[4] [5]}
• They're not even seeking volunteers to help defend their signatures.
• The number of signatures turned in is unknown, meaning it may be possible that they may have collected 25,000 or fewer signatures and may not have enough signatures to successfully defend.

Himnmedia2017 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how you look at it, since Kash Jackson has now reached 5% in a publicly-released poll, the whole kerfuffle above is now academic, at least for me. Some in the above RfC said internals should be excluded for the purposes of the "5% rule", should it be adopted, but I wasn't one of those, I think any publicly-available poll should count. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, if they're on the ballot, they should be fairly represented here, including the infobox. Many readers who come to this article are going to want to know who they can vote for. Wikipedia should remain neutral and not play favorites. Again, my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've made yourself very clear, as have I. The 5% rule is a neutrally-applied standard. Keeping minor parties out of the infobox does not suppress any information, it contextualizes it by acknowledging that these are minor parties. Also, your use of "in my humble opinion" is laughable, you're the least humble person I've ever encountered here. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 5% rule. Please stop saying things that aren't true. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just what it's called, you idiot, I'm not saying it's an actual "rule". Nevermore27 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attacks aside, as long as you keep referencing the non-existent "5% rule", I'll keep pointing out that it's non-existent. If you don't like it, just stop talking about things that don't exist. It's that simple. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to point out that your preferred outcome doesn't exist as a rule either. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I never claimed that it was. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah neither did I, unless you're adding lying to your repertoire. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the elections wiki project (as well as a good portion of the respondents to this RFC) will disagree with you on that count. Clearly you don't like that rule, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edit: actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure what the elections wikiproject has to say about this, and this is clearly within their remit. Have this RFC been posted on the project talk page? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rock Canyon: If I had known that was an option, I would have done so. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there was a debate about this subject (which candidates should be included in an election page infobox) on the project talk page a while back. It was inconclusive and eventually was archived, but someone's pulled it out to be formally closed (you can look at it here). It might be worth posting a notice of this RFC on the project talk page as recommended by WP:APPNOTE. There's also a discussion going on at the village pump that mentions this RFC, if anyone here is interested in looking at that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to notice that a duplicated endorsement was made for J.B. Pritzker. That Chicago Sun-Times endorsement listed under his general election endorsements was for the Democratic primary only. The Sun-Times editorial board has yet to make a general election endorsement.

The only formal media endorsements that have been made are The Marion Republican for Rauner and 71 Republic for Kash Jackson. The Daily Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, State Journal-Register, Herald & Review, Quincy Herald-Whig, Belleville News-Democrat, The Southern Illinoisan -- all among the state's largest newspapers -- have not made an endorsement, either because their editorial boards were either unavailable, decided not to invite candidates or have candidate forums scheduled within the next 45 days. Himnmedia2017 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]