Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Utah

Article Reorganization of 3 May 2010
I reversed the article reorganization made on 3 May 2010. The author who tried to reorganize the article does not understand the caucus/convention/primary process in Utah. The current article is structured so that the candidates are identified, a brief description of the caucus, and then the dates of the upcoming convention, followed by the primary (if necessary). This article should reflect the history of the campaign and I believe that the current structure does that. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I again reversed the article reorganization by Jerzykydd. While there is certainly some merit to your article organization, it doesn't necessarily fit with the actual process. For instance, if both the Republican and Democratic are out right nominated at the convention there will be no primary. Similiarly, you have listed candidates as "Declined" which is also inaccurate. Williams withdrew prior to the filing deadline and Shurtleff suspended his campaign. There are other issues, but please before you reorganize it again, have a discussion as to WHY you wish to do so. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that Utah has a different system, which is exactly why I put "Republican nomination" instead of "Republican primary." Under this section title, we can put both the convention results and then primary results, if necessary. It does not assume that it's out right nominated. Not to mention, that I do understand the Utah nominating process, which is why I named the section as such. The current article is extremely confusing. Why would endorsements go in the candidates section? Not to mention you repeated things twice. My version of the article is well organized and is user-friendly. I have been editing U.S. Senate election articles for a long time now. You're a rookie. I'm going to revert and put the more well organized version back in.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're a veteran, then you should respect another who asks not to revert the article. Simply because you have been editing articles for a long time doesn't make your organization the best. Again, have the discussion BEFORE changes are once again made.JustAKnowItAll (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your article organization doesn't fit with the actual history of the campaign. Since I'm working on more content for the article, you should stop making revisions. Again, let's have a DISCUSSION before any changes are made. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the article to the original organization -- before Jerzeykydd's editing. Let's have a discussion on the best way to make the article better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAKnowItAll (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
I have now protected this page to encourage this discussion, rather than talking here and reverting each other on the article as well. If necessary, consider dispute resolution, such as a request for comment, or raise the issue at a relevant wikiproject, such as WikiProject Politics. Ged UK  07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Organization
I reogranized the article at the end of March 2010 to better reflect Utah's unique convention system. I have planned an extensive content oriented article based on the following outline:

1. Candidates 2. Caucus Meetings 3. State Nominating Conventions 4. Primary 5. General Election 6. Polling

Section 1 covers the basics of the all the filed candidates and those who were potential or who announced but withdrew before the filing deadline.

Section 2 covers the caucus meetings and campaigning up through the nominating conventions.

Section 3 covers the nominating conventions, the results of voting by round, and whether candidates have been eliminated. If no candidate receives 60% of the delegate vote, then the top two candidates advance to the primary.

Section 4 covers the primary campaigning and the primary results with the top candidate moving on to the general election.

Section 5 covers the general election campaigning and results.

Section 6 relegates polling to end of the article.

Jerzeykydd's reorganization does not allow for content to be written based on the stages of the election. The election process in Utah will take the 11 candidates that filed and whittle them down to one from each party. These candidates interact not only with candidates of their own party, but with candidates of the other parties -- even prior to the conventions and primaries.

The current organization relegates the Constitution Party candidate to the end of the article, even though there will be a state nominating convention -- as all registered parties are requied to do by Utah law. The reorganization places two candidates -- Shurtleff and Williams in a "Declined" category, suggesting that somehow they declined to run. These should be appropriately labeled as "Suspended or Withdrawn" as the sources indicate.

I didn't write the endorsement portion but had planned on cleaning it up and moving it to the Caucus Meetings and Convention Campaigning section -- assuming that the endorsements have credible sources. Currently, with Jerzeykydd's organization the endorsements are out of place and has no place to put them. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

 * 1. Your organization is not user-friendly at all.
 * 2. The polling should not be on the bottom of the page. That makes no logical sense.
 * 3. The caucuses, conventions, primaries are all a part of one, big nominating process. To split all of them up into seperate sections would be confusing to the reader. The best thing to do is organize all the candidates that are running for the Republican nomination into one section and put all the endorsements, polling, and results (caucuses, convention, etc.) into one section so that the reader understands how vulnerable Bennett is and so that they will see only the Republican nominating results in one section. For the Democratic nomination (which has much less attention), it should be in a seperate section so the reader understands what happened there.
 * 4. As far the declined category, if you suspend or withdraw your campaign then you decline to run for the nomination. There is no difference between the people who suspended their campaign or the people who never ran to begin with. Why? Because neither candidate will be on the ballot. The only difference is that one candidate did file once, but declined to be on the ballot.
 * 5. The goal is to make the article as easy to read and user-friendly as possible. Your proposal will confuse the reader and all the information is all over the place.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You should really learn to stick with other editors formats. You should respond directly to the original discussion.


 * (1) You have not explained why it is not user-friendly.
 * (2) Why isn't it logical? It is distracting from the article -- you know the written word.
 * (3) Agreed. It's one big nominating process...Meet the Candidates, Caucus, Convention, Primary, Election. Why split it up by partisan politics? This is an encyclopedia article, not the nightly news. If I want to find out who the candidates are, its in one section. If I want to find out what happened at the state conventions, its right there. It is your organization that causes the reader confusion. Where should I put the content concerning the UVU debate on April 2nd where 10 of the 11 candidates appeared? (Republican, Democrat, and Constitution) Should I place it in all three segregated places?
 * (4) Only THREE candidates will be on the ballot in November. Each candidate should be given the exact reason, not a generic one.
 * (5) The goal is to make the article accurate.


 * Bottom line, if you can tell me where to put the content I have planned then by all means do. Where should I put the content concerning the UVU debate? Where should I put the content where Mike Lee files a grievance with the Lt. Govenor's Office? Where do I put the content concerning the Constitution Party Convention on May 8th? I have more, but if we are to follow your organization -- even though I'm writing the article, I'd like to know where to put it. You're the "veteran". Where do I put it? JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why we should split it into partisan politics is because they are seperate elections. The Democratic nomination has nothing to do with the Republican nomination. For example, if I come to this article simply for one reason: to see the vulnerability of Bob Bennett, under my proposal you see the story clearly. Under your proposal, the reader will see the Dem. candidates mushed in there. It will be confusing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were to write a section concerning the vulnerability of Bob Bennett, where would it go? All candidates are using the vulnerability of Bennett to their advantage -- Republican, Democrat, and Constution. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My Thoughts

 * 1. I'm going to agree with the layout presented by JustAKnowItAll. I feel the progression mirrors how I would like to read it, and is quite user friendly.
 * 2. I would agree with Jerzeykydd on the polling not being at the bottom though, it should be in each section that it applies to. There should be polls relating to the Convention, then relating to the Primary if needed, then the General Election each in the appropriate section, not all at the bottom.
 * 3. I agree with JustAKnowItAll, I think splitting up the process is the best way to describe it's complexity.
 * 4. I think either way on declined vs suspended or withdrawn would work just fine. Jaredbelch (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: What layout should be used?
Two layouts are being proposed and the page has been locked because of edit warring. One combines multiple steps in the process of selecting a Senate Candidate, the other lists each one individually. Jaredbelch (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents, the edit war has locked this page at a critical juncture, now the results of tomorrow's party conventions can not be reported in the article because it is locked. We have a style war getting in the way of presenting relevant and timely information. Even if it is jumbled and hard to follow, it is better to have some information presented rather than none. Alangh (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jerzeykidd that the nominating processes should be dealt with for each party separately. The effect of the Bennett situation on each party can and should be discussed separately in each section, so it's not clear why it's thought it all needs to be jumbled together. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think my format is jumbled together. Please explain.JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Utah's process is unusual, and as such the process should be covered in a different article. The process should not be rehashed in each year's specific election article. Furthermore, it's important to have some sort of standard from one state to another for as much consistency as possible. Many readers are looking at more than one state's article, and this new format is confusing, although well-intentioned. Flatterworld (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which "new" format? The new format is Jerzeykydd's. Do you support the current format? The reason why the format I chose is reader friendly is that it incorporates the process throughout the article -- something I feel should be explained to new readers, since Utah does have a unique process. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an encyclopedia article is NOT to present timely information, but ACCURATE information. These articles are of a historical nature. An article should be planned out, and those who contribute should have some say in the format. I've planned out the article and have intended to be a major contributor on this article since I reorganized it at the end of March. The article wasn't then even in the "preferred" format of other state articles. Again, Utah's system is unique and the current format does not take that into account. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Article now out of date
Thanks to the ill-timed "protection" of this article, it's now badly out of date: Bennett has been denied renomination. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Editprotected Please at least add that Bennett will not be a party nominee, this is high-priority info and indisputable. Hekerui (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 11 days of protection seems like a bit much... perhaps an admin can update this and fix the GOP primary section? -00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've neutered the edit template because no specific edit is specified. Please set out exactly how you want the page edited before restoring it. -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett is seeking re-election to a fourth term." That statement is no longer true. Please reopen the article for editing before anachronisms like that mount. Rammer (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Bennett could still try a write-in campaign. Change it to, "Incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett was seeking re-election to a fourth term, but failed to secure enough votes in the Republican convention." Also, reduce the GOP primary results table to just Bridgewater and Lee, the only people who are in the primary. And remove the "if necessary" in the section heading, and change the table header to "State Republican primary results." -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ged  UK  12:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add the usual external links

 * Utah Government Services - Elections
 * U.S. Congress candidates for Utah at Project Vote Smart
 * Utah U.S. Senate 2010 from OurCampaigns.com
 * Campaign contributions from Open Secrets


 * Election 2010: Colorado Senate from Rasmussen Reports

(current links) Note: Please include those 'commented out' so I don't forget them when they become active. Flatterworld (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2010 Utah Senate Race from CQ Politics
 * Official campaign websites

Can we get some content?
I wanted to find out what's happening with the race, and in particular whether the Democrats will have a real challenger in this rather red state. But this page doesn't have yesterday's results or anything about the Democratic nominee. As linked from the Sam Granato page: "Democrats also voted on a contested Senate nomination, and chose Salt Lake City businessman Sam Granato over Christopher Stout. Granato won 77.5 percent to avoid a primary." Here's a link for the GOP results. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected
I've unprotected this again so that editors can update the relevant information. Please avoid re-ignitied the edit war by changing the layout. Update information within the current structure until the discussion on the layout has reached consensus. Ged UK  06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One editor's relevant information would be a change in the layout. Where is the real content? I had some great relevant information planned for this last week before the conventions. Now I have no clue where to put it without adding or changing the layout. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically what information are you talking about in conjunction to "I no clue where to put it without adding or changing the layout."--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had this article planned out since I reorganized it in March. Why don't you actually read up on all the local media articles, The Salt Lake Tribune, The Deseret News, KSL.com and local blogs, and then write a decent article yourself using your layout. Quite frankly, because of your refusal to discuss it before you changed, we're left with a very bland, very confusing article. I don't believe at this point that I should have to discuss with you where I'd like to see the article go -- since you obviously believe that your layout is best. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry if you had it all planned out before hand. Bothing is stopping you from creating a seperate article in a sandbox, and then allowing us to compare apples to apples, so than we can all compare, and I can see what you were "planning," and then maybe I would understand what you're saying. But understand that it's more important that the wikipedia article is user-friendly, and I think that anyone who would come across this article would have no problem understanding the Utah process and then seeing what happened. Under your layout, it would be a different story, in my opinion.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already outlined what I was planning. As I explained on Ged  UK 's user page, I only had a short window of opportunity to add content. My layout is user friendly and it has content (which is just as important as being user-friendly). So...take a look at the current format and tell me that the article is excellant. It's your layout, but devoid of any real content. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the current layout.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do. Where should I put the information concerning the UVU debate? JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can easily create a background/overview section that sumerizes the article and mention it. It's that simple.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100617131639/http://www.electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/300010.html to http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/300010.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate

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) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)