Talk:2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election

Public officials and journalists signing the recall petition
How is this relevant to the recall election, exactly? In their private lives, these individuals are allowed to sign petitions. It seems to be that this suggests that the individuals who signed the petitions are biased, but there's no evidence to suggest that. If that's why it's there, then it's a subtle synthesis of existing information to a conclusion that noone has concluded, failing WP:V. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason they are being disciplined in the first place is because journalists are not supposed to become involved in such a way. If it was OK and there would not be a controversy in national news sources. Journalists are supposed to maintain an air of impartiality, in their profession and private lives. Incitatus13 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But how is this relevant to the election? If they get disciplined by their employers, that's notable to them, not the election. (BTW, those all look like local sources to me, not national. And we are not a news site.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I read about it on one of the major news sources, may have been Fox. The Wisconsin Senate recall elections, 2011 page has a controversy section of which not all of it directly relates to what the candidate said or did. These are supposedly impartial people covering the election. The revelation that they are involved in the recall effort makes it appear that their stories may be as unreliable and biased as if Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher were reporting them. Incitatus13 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That last bit is a bit of a stretch, no? Limbaugh and Maher reek of their bias; it's their calling cards. What have any of these Wisconsin journalists done to "make it appear" that their stories are unreliable? Unless there are specific accusations of bias, it's not relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This story gained traction when Gannett Company journalists reported that several judges signed the recall petition. The implication from the news agency being that judges are supposed to be impartial and therefore ought not be signing the recall petitions. Then the Gannett Company acknowledged that it's own journalists have signed the recall petitions and will be taking disciplinary action regarding that because the company professes to be impartial. This is clearly in my view related to the recall election. I'm open to this being included in it's own section if someone thinks that perhaps it ought not belong in the background section. However, I do believe it belongs in the article and relevant to the recall election. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the signing of recall petitions triggered the election it is relevant to the article. The Gannett newspapers clearly consider it inappropriate and newsworthy that their staff broke the company's code relating to political activity. It seems both relevant and noteworthy. It isn't of vast importance however. It should not be overemphasized, in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference no longer works. You can do a search for the story and it comes up with a synopsis and offer to sell you a copy of the story. Only current stories are free. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy on this sort of thing is, but if this is important to someone, you might want to look into it.Another-sailor (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say this information is relevant, because it demonstrates the Populism associated with a recall, specifically "populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process." Patriot1010 (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers Requirements
Can someone spell out how many people need to sign a petition in order to start a recall election? Why are there primaries? Most important, (and this is not a rhetorical question) please explain what protections there are against kicking out an elected official anytime that their approval rating drops below 50%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.48.162 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some info for you from the Government Accountability Board:
 * In summary from the site: "Like all other public officials, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin are not eligible for recall until they have served at least one year in the current term of office. Recall petitions cannot be circulated before November 4, 2011, and cannot be offered for filing until January 3, 2012. The number of signatures required to trigger a recall election for Governor and/or Lieutenant Governor is 540,208, or one-quarter of the 2,160,832 votes cast for Governor in the November 2010 General Election."
 * In other words, there is no protections against recalling someone in office who falls below 50% approval rating. In theory, you could have a favorable rating of 75% and still get recalled because you only need 25% to force the recall. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Vandalism
A select group of people continue to remove Gladys Huber's name from the Democratic Primary results. Regardless of your politics, this person is on the ballot, and should be listed. S51438 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed blocking of IP's
For the third time, I will revert vandalism by an IP user. Time to block them? S51438 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Important information missing
There's very little information about the general recall election. The date is mentioned at the top, but not in the section about the general election. It's not stated anywhere if there will be a separate question "Should Governor Walker be recalled from office?", as in the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election or if obtaining the petitions means that the election is essentially run over again, with Walker eligible to run, and being "recalled" if he loses. Argyriou (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is there is no separate question. This is a re-run of the November 2010 race. Be bold. Add the important information you think needs to be added.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lt. Gov. Candidates not running mates
The recall election for lieutenant governor is completely separate from the gubernatorial recall. Therefore neither candidate has a running mate. If anything the lieutenant gubernatorial election should be its own page. --50.50.169.91 (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Analysis"
This section draws conclusions about the numbers in the recall primary, but only sites a self-published blog. This should be removed, as Wikipedia is not supposed to draw conclusions, only report what is published in reliable sources. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Intrade
Not taking a firm position one way or another on inclusion of intrade, but here are a few refs dicussing intrade, directly in context of this election. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303610504577417942685044740.html
 * http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/152646135.html#!page=1&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
 * http://www.thedailypage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=54628
 * http://www.democraticunderground.com/101731614
 * http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/300729/desperate-times-call-desperate-tv-ads-christian-schneider

Scholarly articles for Prediction Markets, Intrade specifically

Are Political Markets Really Superior to Polls as Election Predictors? Public Opin Q (2008) 72 (2): 190-215. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn010 Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien Oxford Journals

The data of Prediction Markets, in which Intrade is not only mentioned numerous times in scholarly articles, the data and results of Intrade have been used in contemporary social science research.

A good summary of this as it relates to elections is:

"Recent successes in prediction markets, predicting both public events and corporate outcomes, have generated substantial interest among social scientists, policy makers and the business community. While these markets have their limitations, they may be useful as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future."

Which was found in: "Prediction markets for business and public policy", the Melbourne review Andrew Leigh and Justin Wolfers

Andrew Leigh is an economist in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Email: andrew.leigh@anu.edu.au. Website: http://econrsss.anu.edu. au/~aleigh/

Justin Wolfers is Assistant Professor of Business and Public Policy at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Faculty Research Fellow with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Affiliate with the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a Visiting Scholar with San Francisco Federal Reserve and a Research Fellow with Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Email: jwolfers@wharton.upenn.edu. Web: www.nber.org/~jwolfers

These are just two quick searches of how Prediction Markets, specifically Intrade, is being used as the latter article pointed out - "as a supplement to more primitive mechanisms for predicting the future," namley election polling which more often than not has a bias depending on who is conducting the poll.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the most reliable form of source there is. Intrade data is used in research. Why should we omit this data for an election when it is present, publicly available, and widely used? The Prediction Market for this election, and the organization that collects and publishes this information has academic consensus WP:RS/AC, used widely by others WP:USEBYOTHERS, and is purely a neutral opinion with no bias, (unlike polling) WP:RSOPINION.

These are all hallmarks in Wikipedia's WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Censoring this data when it is so widely available and used, (and trusted) does not make sense. Patriot1010 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You really have no clue what you are talking about. There is not a single election article here on Wikipedia that has intrade predictions on it. You put it right in the polling section, and to a reader who doesn't know what intrade is, it looks like Scott Walker is winning almost 90% of the vote. This is not "censoring" of data, as you claim. And the sources you included are, most of them are not even Wikipedia sources, and the Wikipedia sources you included are guidelines (if you can call them that). I have asked for comments for other editors, and hopefully they will agree that this does not belong, and teach you what an edit war is, because you have proved you don't know what it means! America69 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First, America69, how about we lay off the Ad hominem for this article?


 * Second, I did not put it in the Polling Section, I made a new section called "Predictors" because that is what it is. I do agree and concede, a reader may not be familiar with Predictors, so perhaps we could include a paragraph explaining what a predictor is, is not, and emphasize it is not a "poll" but a binary "yes/no" with a probability of one or the other occurring?


 * Third, an argument of exclusion on the basis that because a data source or a reference does not appear in other wiki articles, therefore can never be in" is not supported by three points: It is included in other wiki and election articles, (see below), it goes against WP:BOLD, and is counterproductive to an entity (Wikipedia) whose mission is to add new information about a topic, (if we can't add things to Wikipedia because its not in Wikipedia, nothing would be added!) - which is not true in this case anyway.


 * Fourth - Here is the Wiki source for Intrade. I invite you to check out the section called "Political Contracts" and its sources - particulary the part where and I quote: "In Florida, a number of polls put Kerry ahead in that state, or said the race was too close to call. The (Prediction markets), however, correctly and consistently showed Bush would win Florida comfortably." Intrade


 * Fifth, the Intrade entry was undone by an anonmymous IP entry, then by a user whose profile reads "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia."America69 which is why I sent you an edit warring WARNING privately, as it appeared as an edit war with a proxy - with no basis for undoing this entry. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I am glad to see this is in discussion rather than anonymous IP's and "retired wiki editors" deleting additions for this topic, and am sure it will not happen again.


 * Thanks
 * Patriot1010 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (this had an edit conflict same time as the admin below edited theirs, sorry for any confusion)

A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here. However, I believe that any predictions, be they Intrade or professional firms, have no value in an encyclopedia as they add nothing to the scholarly discussion of this topic. Therefore, it should not be included. I believe that I am not in the majority on this (vis à vis predictions, in general), as it's just my opinion.—GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am an Administrator, and as such I have been asked to intervene to stop an edit war. Please do not revert other people edits so frequently just to prove a point. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. See Edit warring—GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is a betting game which is influenced by an unknown number of participants whose motivations are unknown included in an article that is intended to share real information about a real world event? This is silly. Start an Intrade article or a guessing game article and add all the Intrade guessing game stuff there. Please stop adding superfluous trash to an item that is trying to provide something close to actual information--not someone's juiced up imaginings. This really cheapens and discredits Wikipedia. We have agreed to exclude "partisan" polls--how do we know this isn't a hidden partisan ploy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyjohlc (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the academics cited above and their work, along with the Universities they have tenure, and their peers would call their work "superfluous trash" If you have any academic articles that counters their findings, by all means provide them! Patriot1010 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an Intrade Wikipedia page and it has been used for predicting the outcome of close political elections. Here is an excerpt from that Wikipedia page:


 * ===Political contracts===
 * Intrade has offered since 2002 the widest range of markets for political events, such as "George W. Bush to win 2004 US Presidential ::Election".


 * In the 2004 presidential election, the market favorite won the electoral vote in every state. This occurred when, even as late as ::election day, many pollsters and analysts were predicting a John Kerry victory. In Florida, a number of polls put Kerry ahead in that ::state, or said the race was too close to call. The betting markets, however, correctly and consistently showed Bush would win Florida ::comfortably.


 * Why put this information on the general Intrade Wikipedia page, instead of the Wikipedia page about the very election the predictor was :predicting? If there are any articles on this being a "hidden partisan ploy" then let us add articles about that on the Intrade page for :general information, and any "partisan ploys" for a particular election on this page. Since Intrade is not affiliated with any partisan :group, and is actually in another Nation - it would be pretty hard to find any evidence this is a partisan ploy - but if there is, then :let us source it.
 * Patriot1010 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Patriot1010--did you actually read the Erikson & Wiezien (2008) article? From the abstract: " ... challenges the optimistic assessment of election markets ... when poll leads are properly discounted, poll-based forecasts outperform vote-share market prices." And then the Rothschild--another Wharton faculty member--(2009) article also from "Political Opinion Quarterly" says "... debiased market-based forecasts provide more accurate probabilities ... than debiased poll-based forecasts." OK, please explain to me the debiasing methods that have been used in interpreting the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Recall "market." Participants create the result they want simply by registering and naming the prices and number of shares they desire to trade--or do I misunderstand the game? I am not necessarily questioning the potential usefulness of Intrade methods but in this instance from what I can see it is operating as a prediction game, not a scientifically applied process. garyjohlc


 * @ garyjohlc
 * Off the bat I would like to say – I am not arguing that prediction markets are more accurate or better in any way, shape or form than :polling, (the academics argue those things). I am arguing that a few Prediction Markets should be included in Wikipedia articles on :elections because Prediction Markets are commonly used and analyzed by academics, the media, and people, AND is trying to answer the same question raw Polls are - (and ALL the data is public, and available for download if you desire).


 * Also of note – the term “debiased” does not reference political bias in Prediction Market data. The one that affects Prediction Markets :(Intrade specifically) is the observed phenomenon of the longshot bias. [|Longshot :Bias]


 * But great question garyjohlc – in summary Erikson and Wlezien established that Prediction Markets HAD a bias (which made them inferior to :election polls), and Rothschild established that if we removed this statistical bias (long-shot bias) then a debiased Prediction Market :prediction is more accurate than a debiased poll-based forcast.


 * Also it should be noted that the Rothschild study compared raw and debiased prediction Market data (Intrade) against a debiased poll-:based forcast, (I won’t get into how you debias a poll, for what goes into that, Rothschild argues “Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com :revolutionized election forecasting for the general public” in his article here, go nuts if you want to learn more).


 * It should also be noted that all of the polls on this Wikipedia article are raw poll numbers, with some screening of obvious :politically biased polls which can be found in the editing history of this Wiki article.


 * Which leads us to your question – how is the Intrade data debiased? It isn’t, its raw – but so is the poll data we have on there right :now. We have raw poll data from a number of sources and raw prediction market data from one source (Intrade) thus:
 * a.	Wikipedia Editors screen polls with obvious political bias, but there are also many other biases in the data that have not been ::removed in the “neutral” polls listed such as did they call land lines, what was the age group, etc – this is why a debiased poll is ::better than a raw poll – however debiased polls are beyond the scope of Wikipedia since that would be original research.
 * b.	It has been established that the main issue with Prediction Markets is the “longshot bias” but the source data is the raw data, is ::not related to the thing we are predicting, and only affects the share price and not the probability.
 * I cannot find any site that has a debiased Wisconsin recall election – but anyone can do it from the data from the source at any point in :time since it started - I can give you a quick debias right now – The current price is $9.55 (which is why the percent chance is 95.5% of :a Walker win) but if we debias that price the actual value (which isn’t always the same as price – value and price is beyond the scope of :this entry) is around $8.55 due to people taking long shots. That’s it.


 * If an analyst, or a reader wanted to apply other analysis tools or algorithms to the data they can – but again that would be original :research and beyond the scope of Wikipedia. It’s the raw data from the souce that should be there, just like the raw polling data and :source.


 * The Sciences of Polling and Prediction
 * Election Polling is based off Statistical Science. Prediction Markets are based off Probability science. Probability is primarily a :theoretical branch of mathematics, which studies the consequences of mathematical definitions. Statistics is primarily an applied branch :of mathematics, which tries to make sense of observations in the real world.:(Source)
 * Both methods are a “scientifically applied process”


 * For example, a pollster creates a statistically significant sample of people to call and find out if they will vote for A or B. :Based on the number of the sample, they can calculate things like margin of error, raw responses and derive a percent of the total sample :for A and B…(and partisans will argue was it done by landline, what county did you call, etc etc).
 * A Prediction Market treats someone’s vote as a futures commodity, and this science has its origin to Aristotle, so its safe to say it’s a :pretty mature “science” and its most familiar use is in the financial sector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract


 * These contracts obligate the holder to buy or sell said commodity at a predetermined price on a delivery date in the future, (for Intrade :it is always $10 per share or “vote” for payout when the election results are announced) So an Intrade example: the share (or number of :“votes”) for Walker is at $9.69, (up from when I wrote the debias portion lol) so the “science” part is the price of the future, F(t), :will be found by compounding the present value S(t) at time t to maturity T by the rate of risk-free return r, go here for details :[|Futures Contract]


 * A few people talked about possible scenarios about market manipulation, etc – so I will give you a quick analysis of the data in :question, looking at the Intrade data, using my “insider knowledge” since I’m from Wisconsin, why Walker’s “futures price for :winning the recall election” tanked around May 5th.' Volume was high and the prediction price fell because people were selling – why? :Because it was looking like Barrett was going to win the Primary rather than Falk, and everyone knew Walker would have a tougher time :beating Barrett than Falk, thus this predictor model went to its lowest probability to around 53%. So this wasn’t market manipulation, :this was supply and demand of the futures shares being traded.


 * In closing, I would like to emphasize – I entered the Prediction Market source (Intrade) not because I am challenging polling, or think :it is less or more “accurate” than polling data, (the academics can argue that) – but Prediction Market data for political elections is :no better or worse, (the data and the science behind it) than the raw polling data on this Wikipedia page AND Academics, the press, and :people have used it, are using it, and will use that data in the future for elections to try to answer the same questions that polling :data does - AND all of its data is available for anyone to view (unlike polls).
 * Patriot1010 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Intrade does not belong here, or on any election page. They do not base their predictions on actual evidence. Poll aggregators use polling data from actual registered voters and other information from that state to make predictions. Intrade lets members who might not even be in the state decide the prediction. Unless every single person participating on Intrade is extremely well educated on what the people of Wisconsin are thinking about and know all the data as well as the aggregators (an impossible scenario) it can't be considered reliable, it's speculation. Rxguy (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Rxguy
 * a. Its a prediction model. Intrade doesn't do anything, the ones buying and selling shares of a future event are aggregated and a price/probablity is calculated from established [|mathmatical theory].
 * b. Why does one have to be in the state or country to do a prediction of an election - or anything? Do I have to be in your state to make a prediction what you will have for lunch tomorrow? Is predicting a vote any different? Academics, the press, and everyone else says its not.
 * c People who live in Wisconsin (like me) obviously have an advantage over outsiders. We are the inside traders. Also - does someone have to be educated to answer a phone and tell someone else who they are going to vote for? They might like candidates A hair for all we know.
 * d. "it can't be considered reliable, it's speculation" had a laugh on that one, History and academics have evidence its reliable, and of course its speculation [|/Speculation] because humans have used the science of probability to determine the price of futures - aka Prediction Markets, for thousands of years, (we just couldn't aggregate all that data in realtime the the public until recently)
 * Patriot1010 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No. No Intrade whatsoever, absolutely not. I don't consider speculation predictors a reliable source whatsoever, and Rxguy above me has wonderfully summarized exactly what I would have said. Of course Intrade will sometimes pick a correct result for an election, but isn't that to be expected when there's only a limited number of outcomes? Thistheman (talk to me) 05:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Intrade had 99.6% reliability for the 2008 US Presidential election. The best pollster was Rasmussen Reports at 92%. SOURCE. Rasmussen Reports is used as a poll on this page.Inkling Markets had Barrett at 96% win Wisconsin Primary (Won). Intrade had Falk at 10% win Wisconsin Recall Primary for most the time (Lost). This nullifies your claim that Intrade "sometimes" picks a correct result not only on the basis of yes/no an event will occur - and it is more reliable than polls, but also - who said polls can pick em any better? The outcome is yes/no same as any poll, just a different method.Patriot1010 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my 2 cents and vote NO on Intrade. I think that makes it 6-1 unless I am missing someone. To Patriot1010, at this point you are not helping your cause. Continually fighting with other editors when no one else is supporting your argument makes you look like a troll trying to stir up trouble rather than someone trying to make good edits. Incitatus13 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review NOTDEMOCRACY and Consensus Patriot1010 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we get an admin in here to stop this nonsense? There is one editor that is combative to all others and will not listen to anyone other than himself. I agree with the previous comment that this guy is nothing more than a troll who likes arguing. Rxguy (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated in history, Userid=GoldRingChip has been notified. Please do not confuse WP:TALK with "combativeness" It has been established by consensus that because a source of information has not been used in a Wikipedia page before, does not preclude its addition. Some have used this talk page as a forum to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. Others have argued reliable sources that should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral - the latter being a guideline of WP:TALK.
 * It is apparent consensus [|consensus] cannot be reached in the talk page. As the original editor who added this work, I will post this issue on the dispute resolution noticeboard for further action, and will notify all those involved in this discussion. Thanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I've been reading your comments on the Intrade page Patriot1010, aka William Pat. I love how you sensationalize everything, "the Wikipedia establishment wants to ban prediction market data for elections" who is this establishment? "I put a couple snapshots on there and then their "political committee" freaks out, tries to ban me, delete the entries, etc...." who is trying to ban you? We are just telling you what is considered appropriate in these articles. I'm sure a lot of the editors that have commented here have been at it for a lot longer than you and are aware of what constitutes appropriate material. No one is trying to ban you from making good edits, we are just saying this is not viewed as appropriate. Rxguy (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My take is that if a polling section is appropriate, so is mention of intrade. Both are used for predicting an outcome, though their methodology differs. According to Charlie Cook and Paul Krugman, intrade is a decent way of measuring *conventional wisdom* with regards to the probability of some event. And Charlie Cook is highly skeptical of that tool, Krugman slightly less. Cite: http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-the-folly-of-crowds-20120517 Krugman: "Betting markets don’t have any mystical power, but they do summarize conventional wisdom pretty well..." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/health-care-resurrection/ I personally put somewhat more credence in these tools, since if the betting price veers too far off from fundamentals, rich profits are obtainable. Further thoughts: a) I guess "Predicting the 2012 Wisconsin Recall" could in theory have its own page, encompassing polling, expert opinion and prediction markets. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Measure for Measure (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed intrade material. Traditional polling is currently in place. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The information is sourced, and relevant. I am not sure that it must be included, but I am sure that those that are trying to say the information must not be included are misuing policy. In any case, the issue will be resolved in just a few days. Don't edit war over it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the dispute resolution, a mediator brought up "a very similar issue in which the community decided to merge, rather than delete, an article consisting of nothing but predictions." So it seems that the information is sourced and relevant, but perhaps a separate article for the "predictions and speculations" on this election could be made, with an entry referring to this article on this page. Thoughts? Patriot1010 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think a separate article is warranted in this case, the information in question is a single table without significant commentary. In 1 day either the prediction will have been proved true, in which case it was relevant and accurate, or it will have been proved false. In the false case, I think it is an interesting topic (although probalby better suited for the Intrade article), of how it was wrong and signficantly so, but I still don't really see it as a problem for this article. If we had several paragrahps of different types of speculation and prediction, etc then I could see a fork, but right now I just don't see the need. Kudos for looking for a good compromise though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To clear up Patriot's word twisting and out of context quote above from the resolution page, here is the meat of the mediator's comment: "If a content issue is not controlled by policy or guidelines, consensus for the content of each article must stand or fall on its own, of course, so that deletion discussion does not create any precedent or policy, but may give some insight as to the opinion of the Wikipedia community on this issue. Under this section of the consensus policy, since the inclusion of the Insight predictions has been properly and timely challenged then they cannot be included in the article unless the proponents establish consensus for their inclusion. Such is clearly not the case at this point in time, so if the proponents wish to continue to pursue the matter, I would suggest filing a request for comments to bring the matter to the attention of the entire community." I will highlight the fact that he says that the addition was properly challenged and consensus needs to be achieved before they are added again. For this reason, I will now be deleting the Intrade section until a consensus has been reached in favor of their addition, as per the mediator's recommendation. Rxguy (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Word twisting in so far as trying to claim the comment proves Intrade is "sourced and relevant." The "very similar issue" was about traditional predictions and did not include Intrade. Rxguy (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have stated your view, Rxguy. Others have commented. Consensus has been reached in favor of the addition, as per mediator's recommendation, and will stay. Patriot1010 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you reading the same recommendation that is on that page? He clearly says that until consensus is reached, (which is not as he plainly says), the addition will not be included and he asked you to seek further comments and achieve clear consensus before adding it. If it is added again without consensus I will report it as vandalism for going against it. . Rxguy (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have 2 more recent editors in favor and 1 more in favor of not allowing it. You can't say consensus is reached right after someone appears and backs up your statement, that's not how it works. The discussion to reach consensus is still ongoing, and until it is reached the mediator said to keep it off. Rxguy (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When one goes beyond the "I don't like it" and personal attacks, there is consensus it is sourced, and relevant, and appropriate - unless you would like to revert personal attacks and the "I don't like it" comments - and perhaps comment with something of substance?? Please read WP:CON for guidance. Thanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Woe, guys, enough of the edit war. Seems like there is still a failure to agree on a consensus here. And for the record, from what I have noticed in other discussions Wikipedia likes to allow plenty of opportunity for discussion before declaring a consensus either way. I think you are both jumping the gun and declaring consensus is on your side. Let's scale it back and just let the process work out as this mediation appears to have been concluded just today from what I've seen. How about some form of a compromise? Anyway, from what I know about Intrade, doesn't the prediction change every couple of minutes based on what people are bidding? With a lack of any real time updating ability on this site, what is the value of having a table listing a value that an editor noticed during a specific visit to the site? I don't see the value of Intrade predictions, but maybe as a compromise have a line or two in the article stating that Intrade gave Walker a greater than 90% chance of winning, or something along those lines instead of devoting a table to it? I'll even go ahead and do the work of making the change and you can see if you approve, then if someone still doesn't like it just change it back. Incitatus13 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Incitatus13, I would accept your compromise for now in the edit history, it looks like Rxguy's sockpuppet already entered it....lol.Patriot1010 (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Incitatus13. It has been conceded that the "neutrality" flag is above the item in question, if you notice that is still there. Also, apparent "sock puppetry, and meat puppetry." has gone on. Wikipedia consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy"[] The addition of this item is sourced, and relevant, and appropriate, and beyond "it doesn't belong here" nothing of substance has been said beyond that. I would like to say I have messaged Rxguy for a 3rd party opinion on whether consensus has been reached. WP:THIRD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looks like at least one side is willing to compromise, we're halfway there. Not sure what you mean by the sockpuppet comment, the only edits I see after mine are to endorsements unless I'm not seeing something, and it seems that anonymous IP editor has been working hard on those all night, lol. My compromise is only a rough skeleton, so feel free to improve it if it needs anything. Incitatus13 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Should election speculator and election predictor data be placed on Election Wiki pages?

Protaganists state (Should be included) because:
 * "A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here"
 * "Prediction and Speculatory Markets are commonly used for elections and analyzed by academics, the media, and people, AND are trying to answer the same question raw Polls are."
 * "My take is that if a polling section is appropriate, so is mention of intrade. Both are used for predicting an outcome, though their methodology differs."
 * "The information is sourced, and relevant."

Antagonists state (Should not be included) because:
 * "There is not a single election article here on Wikipedia that has intrade predictions on it."
 * "any predictions, be they Intrade or professional firms, have no value in an encyclopedia as they add nothing to the scholarly discussion of this topic."
 * "Poll aggregators use polling data from actual registered voters and other information from that state to make predictions. Intrade lets members who might not even be in the state decide the prediction."
 * Traditional polling is currently in place

Talk page is located at the Talk:Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2012 talk page, under Intrade [] Patriot1010 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[moved RfC] Coastside (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Are snapshots of sourced and relevant Prediction Markets appropriate to add to election pages (separate, but following a poll section), to supplement Poll data? (Example Below)

Speculations
{| class="wikitable" ! Predictor ! style="width:135px;"| Date(s) administered ! class=small | Sample size ! Change ! style="width:100px;"| Scott Walker (R) ! style="width:100px;"| Tom Barrett (D)
 * - valign= bottom
 * Intrade
 * align=center| May 26, 2012
 * align=center| 6165
 * align=center| -3%
 * align=center| 87.4%
 * align=center| 12.6%
 * Intrade
 * align=center| June 2, 2012
 * align=center| 10,823
 * align=center| +1.6%
 * align=center| 97.3%
 * align=center| 2.7%
 * align=center| 97.3%
 * align=center| 2.7%

Patriot1010 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of polls in articles as they change so much....but since so many seem to see them as encyclopedic, I'm not opposed to them. I really don't see the difference between a predictor model and a poll. Seems it gives the same sort of information about how the electorate is heading at a given time within the election process. If predictor models are generally accepted as accurate, it ought to be included. Just because there may be only a handful of articles that has a predictor model, doesn't mean it ought to be excluded - it actually may mean we ought to improve the other articles to include them there (be bold as they say here in wiki-land). That's my two cents, whatever it's worth. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't see any big problem with them. But it would be best if they were discussed by secondary sources.  In other words, an editor including the raw data could be seen as WP:OR or WP:CHERRY PICKING.  Best would be if, for example, a noted analyst discussed the data in some article, then the editor would have a secondary source (the analyst) thus avoiding OR issues. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look towards the top of this discussion, I included several secondary sources discussing intrade in the context of this election. Many more sources are availalbe discussing intreade in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
There seems to be some NPOV issues with the way that Arthur Kohl-Riggs, Walker's primary, opponent, is being described. No source has been provided to confirm that he is a regisisterd Democrat, or that he is not a registered Republican (he is being described as a "fake Republican"). Also, the description "political agitator" seems to be biased. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In Wisconsin, no one is officially registered with any political party - anyone may vote in Primary races for example - therefore you will never see an article for anyone in Wisconsin being described as a "Registered Republican." I can tell you as one from Wisconsin the term used to describe Arthur Kohl-Riggs in this Primary was either as a "political agitator" or "protest candidate" since Arthur Kohl-Riggs was a protestor for a year. "political agitator" or "protest candidate" would be a good, NPOV description of Arthur Kohl-Riggs in this article. We should not use the term "fake" Republican or Democrat in my opinion however. Patriot1010 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was: move articles as proposed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

– I see little purpose to have the year at the end of these articles, as this is the first gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin's history, as also with the ones that happened in California and North Dakota. The titles should be kept as short and concise as possible. --MuZemike 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 → Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election
 * California gubernatorial recall election, 2003 → California gubernatorial recall election
 * North Dakota gubernatorial recall election, 1921 → North Dakota gubernatorial recall election


 * I can see pros and cons to both sides. Recall elections are rare so maybe dates aren't necessary and a shorter title is better. But at the same time election pages usually have a date and I know in the cases of special elections a date is always included whether it's the first in that district/state's history or not. I'm not arguing for either side, but there is also the alternative option of just redirecting those titles to the pages. Rxguy (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, i.e. WP:PRECISION. Some might argue that the addition of a date is informative and does no harm but the presence of a date implies that other similar recalls occurred which, evidently, is not the case.  —  AjaxSmack  21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm undecided as I feel that the nom makes a valid argument, but at the same time the title simply notes the year the recall election took place. So either way, I'm on the fence. Just wanted to add my two cents. America69 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The examples in WP:PRECISION are not quite the same point. You wouldn't call an article United States Apollo program (1961–75), because the Apollo program was one of a kind.  These recall elections, on the other hand, are/were part of a normal, established process, albeit one that is rarely used; that makes it sort of an "accident" that they happen to be unique, so far, for each state.  Granted, if an election to recall, say, Jerry Brown were to qualify for the ballot and be contested, it would be no great hardship to move the article on the Gray Davis recall, but still, why not have a systematic nomenclature in the first place? --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (with the redirects described by 70.24.251.208 below). Patriot1010 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Previsous text:On the basis of Parenthetical disambiguation which is also in WP:PRECISION. Someone searching for Wisconsin Gubernatorial elections may search 2010, 2014 and miss a 2012 election since it was halfway through a typical term. Plus, if there is another one, (God forbid), we would use this naming to differentiate the two anyway. Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 is the best balance of precision and disambiguation. Patriot1010 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support WP:PRECISION. Patriot1010's concerns can be addressed with redirects without the word "recall" in them. As there have only been 3 recall elections since 1900 in the US, these do not need years attached. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

What do LV, RV, and DV Mean?
Please add explanation/legend of what LV, RV, and DV mean in the first opinion polls table. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As it ends
Good working with you all, even those that disagreed. See you when the results are final. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though the race has been called, they're still counting the votes. Those still need to be updated. --MuZemike 02:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The major news outlets have called it, but shouldn't (as voting is still coming in at this time) the article really reflect the status of the it being called once we've received full vote counts (unless a candidate has conceded)? Or something from when the department of state report it? Dtheweather9 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, its past over now in any case, included concessions - but even if people are still voting, there is a good science behind predictions - The people still voting in Milwaukee could not have overcome the lead Walker had. Now, I would support a general rule saying don't report while anyone is still voting, as it discourages their votes, but that is not what the rule is, and it does not make the call less accurate. Gaijin42 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Marquette pregnancy issue
Why does the article contain nothing about the allegation that Walker sired an out-of-wedlock child? This bombshell and the counter-allegation that the first allegation had confused Scott Kevin Walker with another student ("Scott Alan Walker") came a few days before the recall election. Especially if the first allegation was perceived to be false, it may have evoked a backlash pushing Scott Kevin Walker's actual vote percentage higher than what polls had predicted. Rammer (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Debunked rumors do not belong in the article, especially ones that did not get significant WP:Notability. It was covered in a couple of blogs. the majority of voters (of all striped) are not even aware of the rumor. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have lived in Wisconsin all my life in the Milwaukee area, and have never heard of this. Until it is in the MJS or some other NPOV source, gimmie a break - some dude's blog does not cut it. There is so much BS out there on blogs from this recall its sad. Patriot1010 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

540,208 signatures needed to initiate recall
What is the reason for the number 540,208? Was that number just pulled out of the hat, or is there some legal basis for the number? Please answer (with references) in the article, of course.CountMacula (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No ref, but it was based on the total # of votes in the original election. I forget what %. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall 25% Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising Commentary/Plagiarism
The first paragraph includes the following, "In total, more than $62 million has been spent by the candidates and outside groups.[4] Of the $30 million raised by Walker, much of it came from outside the state. About $4 million has been spent by Barrett, with most of his donors residing in Wisconsin.[4]" This comes from a USA Today Article. I think that the headline numbers are noteworthy, but the commentary raises significant POV issues as the words "much" is used to describe one candidates out-of-state funding and "most" used to describe another. Without hard totals, these values are speculative. Additionally, this is clearly designed to shine one candidate in a poorer light.

More seriously, this sentence is essentially a reworded copy of the USA Today article and is not quoted. The source USA Today article says, "More than $62 million was spent by the candidates and outside groups. Much of the $30 million raised by Walker came from outside the state. Barrett has spent about $4 million; most of his donors live in Wisconsin." The editor using this quote simply moved words around. This is plagiarism--cut and dry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thequackdaddy (talk • contribs) 05:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reinstating. "Much" and "most" are directly from the article. The fact that much of the money raised by Walker came from out of state is important and noteworthy. Will add quote/s. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be something about the millions of out of state money for Falk - as this is why Barrett had so little.Patriot1010 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job adding info on the senate elections
I spent quite a bit of time looking at various news sources for what the results of the four state senate recall elections and Wikipedia was the first place i found that had the good sense to mention those important elections as well. Good coverage. 192.223.163.6 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Should Hariprasad Trivedi be in the results box?
Trivedi received less than 1% of the vote and his vote total had no major affect on the election. I'm not sure what the criteria is, but he did not change the race like Nader and Perot in the 2000 and 1992 presidential elections. --Southronite (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He had no chance of winning, and did not affect the election in any significant way, but he was an official candidate, and recieved votes. I think we should include him. We should limit his inclusion to the tabular sections, though, and not dedicate any narrative/editorial space to his campaign. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"declined" section
Are people that didn't run for election notable for the election? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Impact of Kristen Crowell on recall election
There are numerous references about her role in the recall election.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. You may want to check this out, if you haven't already. Yours, Quis separabit?  14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131103133716/http://sheboyganhub.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120318/SHE0101/203180442/29-circuit-court-judges-signed-Walker-recall-petitions to http://sheboyganhub.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120318/SHE0101/203180442/29-circuit-court-judges-signed-Walker-recall-petitions

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 07:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Dakota gubernatorial recall election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)