Talk:2010 Texas gubernatorial election

Bulleted candidates' list
At this early stage in the campaign, sourced speculation may be allowed on bulleted lists as long as they are from bonafied journalistic sources or from the potential candidates' web sites. But when the active campaigning begins, only declared candidates may be listed in the bulleted lists. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified an administrator to monitor this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A suitable citation has been found which is Larry Kilgore's own 2010 campaign web site so the disputed edit was restored with the new citation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit War and protection
I've noticed a long-term edit war between anonymous and registered users. Instead of issuing blocks, I have fully protected this article (see WP:WRONG for the stance on the version protected). Until the dispute is resolved here on this talk page, the indefinite full protection will remain on this article. -MBK004 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only properly cited source for Daiell is http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/02/campaign-update-from-jeff-daiell-texas-libertarian-seeking-nomination-for-governor/ and it does not contain anything about the text some editors want to put here. He may have won those votes in 1990, but as yet has not provided a source saying so. If this has been "noted by the Texas Secretary of State; Texas Almanac; and America Votes" then there should be a source linked to that information.

I have also occasionally said that another editor is including biased statements; I was referring to statements like, "Daiell is being backed by Richard Winger, America's leading authority on election law" when there is no proof that Winger is a leading authority on anything.

And there's no reason for any candidate's website to be included in the text of the article; that should be in the external links and/or references.

Also, among the last edits before this page was protected, one editor removed the link to the other Libertarian candidate without any obvious reason for doing so. Ratemonth (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise
I've found an actual source for some of the information the other editor wants to include: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1990&fips=48&f=0&off=5&elect=0 which they could've found easily enough if they'd bothered to try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratemonth (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the candidate, I find this suggestion excellent. - Jeff Daiell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.196.221 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 69.153.196.221 ... That's the same URL that was removing info on the other Libertarian candidate. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can agree to stop edit warring with this compromise and discuss any further issues, I will agree to lift the full edit protection of this article. Can I have that agreement from each of the warring parties? -MBK004 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that. Ratemonth (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there hasn't been a response from the IP, I am going to Assume Good Faith and unprotect. If the IP comes back, I will enforce 1RR on the parties (namely the IP that does not discuss). -MBK004 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

here's a new poll
For whenever the block is lifted...

Organization of page
It should be reorganized so it fits every other governors election page. Example: Arkansas. Like this. The info on each candidate can go somewhere else, but not on the candidate list where you are browsing for candidates. Also, is the part about third parties qualifying for the election copied from the Texas Secretary of State website? BrianY (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizng the candidates' section is fine with me as long as that info is not just deleted. I like the look of the New York page: [] which starts with info about each party's candidates, followed by separate lists for announced and potential candidates for each party. Ratemonth (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is messy, as noted in the section above this one. I agree that the page needs to be edited to the specifications of the other election pages. Someone wrote that candidates should be ordered by "seriousness"... that's quite subjective. It says that some candidates, like John Sharp are "no longer expected to run", but (1) who says they aren't expected to run, and (2) where are the sources and the info about them being interested in the first place? Info that was deleted needs to be reinserted, as an election page is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. The polling section is disorderly as well. Let's get this page up to speed. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reformatted the candidates into two; one showing those candidates which have officially announced their campaigns (further organized by political party) and a second section showing all candidates which have not formally announced an intent to run. At least this is a hopeful start to making this article better. Maverick9711 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Former candidates
Why are we listing Watson, Van de Putte, and Berman as possible candidates? They have all stated they will not run. Couldn't we have a section called Former candidates, or Former possible candidates? Ratemonth (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the endorsement for Watson since he is not a candidate. Quidam65 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements
Why is there only an endorsement list for Republican candidates? -Kylelovesyou (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because until today when Bill White announced, there were no serious Democratic candidates for people to endorse Skeetypeety (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Skeetypeety

Table headings
What earthly reason can there be for using standards cells in place of regular headings in the polling tables? It makes no sense whatsoever. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

 * The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). I'm a veteran editor.

As far as where this rule has been discussed. Refer to:
 * United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010
 * Talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 8
 * User:GageSkidmore

Thank you for reading.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Precedence Does not Trump Government Election Guidelines

The policy with the Infobox is fine for after the election results are in, but while the election season is in progress, this policy runs afoul of IRC and FCC rules regarding non-profit organizations and their handling of election info. My understanding is that the IRS has published guidelines that state that non-profit organizations must treat all candidates equally on web site pages with information concerning upcoming elections. Presumably failure to do so could be grounds for the loss of non-profit status. It is my intention to see to it that the Wikipedia Foundation starts respecting these guidelines by stopping editors, whether veteran or brand new like myself, from undoing edits that provide for equal treatment of all ballot-qualified candidates. The Infobox can easily be recoded to accommodate as many candidates as this requires. Until that happens I have found that it handles 3 candidates just fine. I look forward to someone with access to a good picture of the Green Party candidate to add them as well. Rockmhoward (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an IRS publication at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html that discusses the guidelines for non-profit organizations in a general manner. Please note the section on web sites and especially Example 19 which, in my view, closely pertains to the election pages posted by Wikipedia. Note that the guidelines specifically state that all candidates must be treated equally or else a non-profit organization can be determined to be intervening illegally in an election. Rockmhoward (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone offer any independent proof that this policy applies to this page? I'm not convinced it applies to this page. Would the IRS consider encyclopedia articles about elections to be "voter guides"? Wikipedia does not refer to articles about elections in that way. Ratemonth (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be no "proof" in a regulatory matter. Even legal precedence in a court of law does not mean the matter can't be overturned later.

While the IRS would not consider encyclopedia articles about elections to be "voter guides", that is irrelevant. These are web pages concerning upcoming elections that are on a site owned by a non-profit org. That is how I think the IRS would view them and if I am correct about that, then the regulations would apply. Even though wikipedia doesn't call these "voter guides", it doesn't matter. The election pages list candidates who are standing for election and therefore it serves the purpose of a voter's guide. This is one of those situations where if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck even if you call it something else. Rockmhoward (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this has been a cause of concern on any election articles in the past.

Hypothetical legal threats aside, Glass and Shafto are not of any genuine importance to this election and should not be given as much weight as Perry and White. Ratemonth (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that this has not been a cause of concern in election articles before. I am also pretty sure that the Wikipedia managers were not aware of these IRS guidelines before I pointed them out either. The result is that Wikipedia is currently exposed to the possibility of losing their non-profit status. Now I am willing to create and work on a WikiProject to see that this does not happen. This project would start by defining guidelines for US election pages on Wikipedia that conform to the non-profit guidelines and then getting Wikipedia managers to sign off on them so that editors take them seriously. This should provide the Wikipedia Foundation with some legal cover while the editors get busy with cleaning up the areas of the site where past editors have imposed their opinions about which candidates should have more weight than others.

I would ask you to help, but I can see that you feel strongly that treating candidates unequally is important. Accordingly I invite you to state your case to the site managers. Perhaps they would be willing to sell Wikipedia to a for-profit venture thus bypassing the IRS regulations. Maybe they will decide to take on the IRS head-on. Who can say? I just think that it would be wise to do the sensible thing and keep Wikipedia "above the fray" and not allow the content to intervene in election politics as it does now and clearly will continue you to do if the current consensus actions of the editors is not curtailed. Rockmhoward (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the Texas Tribune poll, I think Glass qualifies as a major candidate. Does anyone disagree?Ratemonth (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What Texas tribune poll? It's not in the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he is referring to this poll, which places the Libertarian candidate at 5%. Unless I am mistaken, in no way does this reflect a "major" candidacy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glass has earned the right to be in the infobox, at least until election day.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One poll at 5%, subsequently busted at 3% is not qualification. I am in no way opposed to third parties being there and I wish we could put them everywhere. So I took it out for now. If more polls show her above 5%, Id be inclined to put it back. We really need a set policy agreement for US elections on this. Does anyone know where to start a general discussion like that? Metallurgist (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Shafto now major candidate?
I don't know the criteria by which candidates are labeled as major or minor, and I want to be careful to be objective (note my user name). But now that Deb Shafto is on the ballot, does she not have as valid a claim as the Libertarian candidate to be listed among the major candidates?

If nobody comments to the contrary I'll make that change next week.

Regards, Eshafto (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lord, I just looked at the article history and read the note on the info box. Until there are poll results for the four candidates, I will assume that the Green and Libertarian candidates should have equal billing. But I'll wait for the edit war to settle down to see what that billing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshafto (talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on precedent (every other election article), there is a 5% rule. Until a third party candidate obtains 5% or more in just one pre-election poll, no other candidate can be allowed in the infobox. Simply being on the ballot is not a qualification for being in the infobox. This is the way it is in every election. Why? Because we have had consensus on this 5% rule on many other occasions.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because all the other "election" articles on Wikipedia are "incorrect" and "missleading" because they rely on some 5% rule of pre-election polls that do not contain "all" the candidates on the "official election ballot", does not mean that the Texas gubernatorial election page of Wikipedia should also be "incorrect" and "missleading". There should be no distinction such as Major or Minor candidates, just as the State of Texas makes no Distinction between Major and Minor candidates once the Ballot is fixed. Who here doesn't believe that Wikipedia should be unbiased like the State of Texas? Or should Wikipedia be just another biased political News organization that give special treatment to their favorite political parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.137.174 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a distinction. The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party candidate is minor. The 'Rent is too D*** High Party' candidate is minor. Wikipedia would be biased to cover fringe or minor candidates with the same weight as a major candidate. 5% is a decent rule; 5% could be significant in that it could draw votes away (see United States Senate election in Oregon, 2008). Adding a candidate on the rather ridiculous reason of ballot access is stupid; it would be insane to add Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin to the infobox on the United States presidential election, 2008 on sole basis of ballot access.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

All Polls that do not reflect the Official Texas Gubernatorial Ballot should be removed
Seems there is some weird 5% rule that makes absolutely no sense for the general election after the State of Texas determines who is on the general election ballot. All polls that do not include the general election ballot are not accurate as the do not include all the choices on the ballot and cannot be used to determine anything wrt who has or has not achieved some sort of arbitrary 5%. The polls are bought and paid, usually by people with some political interest other than holding a fair election. I'll leave this up for a few days then remove polls that don't reflect the Official State Ballot.

All polls should be included, regardless of which candidates did or did not appear on them.Ratemonth (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No polls have been removed yet. I was simply wanting to discuss removing inaccurate polls that do not include all candidates that are on the Official State of Texas Ballot. The Official Ballot is not and unknown anymore, but is actually known. So, a poll that does not include the Official State Ballot is not accurate because the pollee did not have all the choices that will be on the ballot. By your logic, if i held a poll tomorrow that only Kathie Glass and Deb Shafto....

"If the General Election were held today, who would you vote for Governor of Texas, Kathie Glass or Deb Shafto?"

I'll bet you both of these candidates would be way above the arbitrary 5% criteria to be a major party candidate on Wikipedia. Where did this nebulous criteria come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.137.174 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that they are not going to poll high even if included. Im all for third parties, but they have to be realistic. This is what the polls say. We cant make up our own ideal reality.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kathie Glass article
Glass is only notable for this one event, which means she shouldn't have her own article. The material should be merged into this one, and her article should be changed into a Redirect to this article. We should be providing non-partisan information, which imo includes Project Vote Smart and the FEC. Her article provides only her campaign site, and imo that's campaigning, not being encyclopedic. Flatterworld (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be merged on notability grounds. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree; Glass is not notable in and of herself for an article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and redirected the article, but only merged the reference. There wasn't much else to merge IMO. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox and polling
Kathie Glass is in the infobox, but has only one poll even showing her registering a degree of support. Even so, only 5%. Two subsequent polls have shown little to no support. Shes not even listed on RCP. I would love to have her there if she had the support, but for now its ridiculous and unjustified clutter. I propose to remove her from both the infobox and the poll table until polling or debate appearances warrant it.

I would have done it myself, but the page is protected. Even though I could have done it, discussion is probably better. Also, there really needs to be a broad policy for who to include. This same debate occurred last year for New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009 with Chris Daggett. He was later determined to warrant the inclusion. Despite my 5 years here, I dont know where to start general broad discusssions.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The map with results is broken, is that right? Petrb (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Showing General Election Poll Winners
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what warrants a win in a general election poll. First, the poll must contain all candidates that are on the ballot, otherwise it is not an election poll and no winner can be determined. Second, the margin of error exists for a reason. The margin of error is to show the real average of a population, as opposed to the average of the sample. For example, if Perry has 48%, Glass 8%, White 43% and Shafto 1% in a single poll, and the margin of error is ±4.5%, no winner can be declared. A person is only determined to be the leader in a poll if, and only if, the poll includes all candidates on the ballot and they are more than the margin error above the other candidates on the ballot. 165.91.14.160 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Texas gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101002124920/http://www.stylemagazine.com:80/2009/12/texas-house-democratic-leaders-endorse-bill-white-for-governor/ to http://www.stylemagazine.com/2009/12/texas-house-democratic-leaders-endorse-bill-white-for-governor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Texas gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100102055314/http://tips-q.com/news/right/1428462-eagle-forum-founder-phyllis-schlafly-endorses-gov-rick-perry-re-election to http://www.tips-q.com/news/right/1428462-eagle-forum-founder-phyllis-schlafly-endorses-gov-rick-perry-re-election
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091121182055/http://texans.forkay.com:80/pages/endorsements to http://texans.forkay.com/pages/endorsements
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091128030329/http://texans.forkay.com:80/assets/2009/1/24/KBH_Leadership_List.pdf to http://texans.forkay.com/assets/2009/1/24/KBH_Leadership_List.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708001424/https://secure.billwhitefortexas.com/page/contribute/ContributionDrive?source=jandeadline to https://secure.billwhitefortexas.com/page/contribute/ContributionDrive?source=jandeadline

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)