Talk:2008 United States Senate special election in Mississippi

Potential candidates section
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Submitted arbitration request in Requests for arbitration. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 As an historical document, who the papers specualted might run is still a notable element.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)

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)
 * This is not a merged article. This is a separate article.—Markles 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And regardless, a consensus has been reached. Please do not act unilaterally without the wishes of a consensus.—Markles 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't and I said I wouldn't... what "voodoo" exactly did you do because as near as I can tell... the page has said "election" for several hours now and wasn't in need of "fixing" along those lines?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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. -- ALLSTAR  echo 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)
 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that this page be moved (back) to Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 for the folowing reasons. Previously in wikipedia... all special congressional elections were differentiated from the general election by the words "special election" and a more in depth description of the election. Examples: California's 50th congressional district special election, 2006 vs United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2006... this particular special election is new teritory because, since wikipedia's inception, there has yet to be a special Senate election the same year but a different date than the regular election (and actually, for the present, this election is scheduled for the same day as the regular election but we have decided to keep it as two pages due to a pending court case). There is some ambiguity because, while you have multiple regular house elections in one day, you do not have multiple regular Senate elections for a state in one day. It is also unlikely that a state will have multiple Senate special elections in one year, for differnet classes or otherwise. However, despite the unlikelyhood, I'm in favor of setting the standard to differiate the name of the special election as much as possible from the regular election in case that occurs. I initially moved the page without contention but then user:Markles, in good faith, got this renaming action confused with a seperate debate and moved it back so I will now put it up for concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose.
 * The proposed name does not include "United States" so it is not clear if it is a US Senator or a state Senator.
 * The current name is clear, unambiguous, and consistent.
 * The "class 1" in an article name is really uncommonly used and wouldn't be as clear to the reader what is meant.
 * There will be two US Senate elections in Mississippi in 2008. One will be a regular election and one special election. Thus: United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 (Thad Cochran) and United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 (Trent Lott / Roger Wicker). —Markles 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to point one... don't most states have state level congressional districts on top of the federal ones. In such a case, isn't there just as much ambiguity within a naming convention such as California's 50th congressional district special election, 2006... also wouldn't stating the class help alleviate this since most states do not have classes of Senators.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are "state level congressional districts"?—Markles 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the Florida House of Representatives has districts of it's own. Aren't state legislatures sometimes called congesses (maybe I'm full of it on this one)?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * State legislature (United States) would seem to say no -- there are no state congresses, according to that article (and my memory). Ashdog137 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there's a naming standard which applies and should be used. — Nightstallion 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nightstallion -- ALLSTAR  echo 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the naming standard outlined? Also, my major point is that this election, with the potential of having 2 Senate elections on different days in the same year, has never happend since wikipedia was founded. How can there be a standard for something unprecedented?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


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

Negative Sites

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

dispute resolution
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
 * Harvey Johnson, Jr.
 * Ray Mabus

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) 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)

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)

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

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)

'''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.
 * Did you see this above:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The Clarion Ledger is a respected newspaper... in any event... this topic is settled.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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." . Should I add Mabus back ro the "declined" category now or can we drop this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.. no NY TImes or AP... here's a yahoo news story 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

We keep rehashing points we've already been over, let me make myself clear... accodring to What Wikipedia is not.... This is not simply a wikipedia guideline... it's policy. 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)
 * "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."
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)

Split Controversy Section

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

not to split--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section actually distracts from the point of the page. Per Articles on elections, that section should be moved to a seperate article such as 2008 United States Senate special election in Mississippi controversy.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose--This does not warrant its own article and the issue of the controversy has been settled by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's settled and not notable at all then the section should be deleted. I beleive the controversy is notable as an historical event and should thus have it's own page ... the election is a current event and should be the sole focus of this page. This is in keeping with the wikipedia guideline cited above.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral If Articles on elections says that section should be moved to a seperate article, why is this being discussed? Personally, don't mind it staying like it is, but don't mind it being sent off to its own article either. But if there's policy that says seperate it, then the policy should be followed. - ✰ ALLSTAR ✰ echo 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's historically relevant and should remain here.—Markles 11:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if the articles are combined I feel it should all be on one page Gang14 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the controversy is un-important outside of the purview of this election. --Cjs56 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

Biased picture choice
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)