Talk:2014 Florida's 13th congressional district special election

Larry Ahern's candidacy
Being that Ahern has endorsed David Jolly, should he still be counted as a potential candidate or be immediately placed under the Declined section?


 * You're right. He has declined. I will move him. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Democratic Primary - Hypothetical or not
Since the Dem primary isn't going to happen anymore now that Alex Sink is the only candidate, should the two polls that were conducted be considered hypothetical or not?


 * You are right. I have moved it. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian
So, should we include the Libertarian? I personally don't think he has hit the margin but several others appear to disagree. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First, what are the official rules from wikipedia staff on third party candidates (link please)? Tiller54 thinks it's 5% in the polls, you think it's 5% in the general election (or consistent 5% in the polls, you seem somewhat indecisive between the two from your edit comments), and others think it's inclusion in a debate with the major party candidates. A link to the official rule wording on this subject would help immensely.

Overby's currently averaging 4.8% in the polls, if that gets back to 5%, in my opinion that should be enough. The debate inclusion gives even more reason to put him back on should his poll average rise to 5% again. In my opinion, there's no need to wait until the general election once the libertarian is back at 5%, the only reason there would possibly be at that point is convenience, and that's a rather lame excuse.

Percival5 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Put him on asap. It is ridiculous to exclude a valid candidate who was included in a nationally televised debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is unfair to pretend that he does not exist when he is one of three candidates listed on the ballot and according to polling won the nationally televised debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are including him. The question is whether or not he deserves to be in the infobox at the front of the article. He has not met prior guidelines set for inclusion. (He needs 5% in the election/regular polling or to be seriously considered in the election.) I am a fan of his, don't get me wrong, but we can't let that get in way of our judgement. PrairieKid (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * He has received over 5% in polling and was included in the national debate. Beyond the polls listed at the bottom of the page, he also received 7.3% when matched against Sink and Bircher according to St. Pete Polls. Certainly this reaches your criteria. In addition, you hide the listing of candidates on the ballot until the end of the page. At the least, this should be displayed on that top so that it is clear there are three valid candidates.


 * The 5% in polling that he has received does not count in the light of the overwhelming 95% of the vote that did not swing his way. I completely agree that he has not met prior guidelines for inclusion, and would further go to say that he not be included at all. I am also a fan of the man, but do not believe that this should get in the way of an objective judgement. On the other hand, he is one of the three candidates listed on the ballot and he did win the TV debate. The results of the St. Pete Polls cannot be similarly ignored in this debate. Mr. Overby is also a political outsider who is running a real grassroots campaign. But again - this cannot be allowed to stand in the way of objectivity, and hence I cannot in any way support his inclusion in the page, let alone the infobox, be it at the bottom. I say this even though i think it would be interesting to see how he emerges in the future as an alternative to the regular political groups - and for which reason I completely support the RFC. Thanks! Sonarclawz (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You cite objectivity, but if the measure for inclusion is 5% in polls then he has already met that criteria. Even if you decide to change your standard of objectivity, which happens often to third party candidates, his inclusion on the state ballot should be enough for inclusion on the election page. Why purposefully mislead the people of Florida and pretend there isn't a third candidate on the ballot? There's no logical reason to keep him off of a page when it requires no effort and no expense to simply present all three candidates who are listed on the ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding not including him because of objective rules, I would cite wikipedia's general guidelines: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and our debate is not on including his candidacy, which we are. It is on doing it "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias." He is polling around 5%, at the most. He has more than 5% of the article, which is the first indicator of inclusion. For him to be in the infobox, he needs to have similar support to his opponents. Now, he did do well in the debate but until polling comes out on the election, we won't know if it warrants his inclusion. (I'd bring you to WP:Crystal.) Look, everyone here is a fan of Overby. You, 67.233.190.238, can't let that impede your judgement. PrairieKid (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am using a simple standard for my judgment. His name is one of three on the ballot. You are imposing a viewpoint on others by excluding him from the infobox. Your judgment is based on polls of a few hundred people with margins of error up to +/-5%. Providing an accurate infobox which reflects the ballot is a neutral way to present an election. It requires no biased argument about polls or claims of supposed objectivity. He is good enough to have a name on the ballot and therefore he is good enough to be in the infobox so that people are aware of their choices. This principal of inclusion defines a neutral point of view. Furthermore, the previously stated objective standard was that he reach 5% in the polls, which he did. However, having met this standard, you have added the condition that he can't have more than 5% of the article. This is ridiculous. Cite your standard for inclusion and stick to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can someone please give a link to the official standard for inclusion? Originally, you said "5% in the actual election". Then you said "5% in the polls (consistently)", then you say "similar support to his opponents." Please, prairiekid, provide a link to the official rule wording by wikipedia staff on this subject (or, if this rule was decided by consensus, a link to the page where that consensus was reached), as even you seem unsure as to what the actual rules are. Find a standard and stick to it.


 * However, 67.233.190.238, until a decision is made, you putting overby in the infobox will still be reverted. Don't put him there until we reach agreement here. Percival5 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. That was very recent and similar. This is the main discussion on the topic. It establishes a 5% vote threshold, with some leniency. Oh look, that is exactly what I am saying above. Overby is not quite at 5%, but we could still include him if he was getting constant coverage and if he was in any way special. I do not think he warrants inclusion. He does not meet the normal guidelines and certainly has not done any thing else to deserve inclusion. I'd say that wraps things up here. PrairieKid (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * All right. He's currently averaging 4.8% in the polls, so sorry, 67.233.190.238, but you will still not be allowed to put Overby into the infobox (same goes for all others). We'll resume this discussion when and if he averages at least 5%. Percival5 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for remaining WP:Civil everyone! PrairieKid (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

He's on the ballot and was included in the national debate, which is significant and has received notable news coverage. There's no valid reason to hide information from the public like that. In addition your 4.8% average is incorrect because it does not include his showing at 7.3% in one of the St. Pete polls. As Wikipedia's Ignore All Rules policy states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" and "Use your common sense over anything else." Common sense would dictate that a candidate who is on the ballot and included in the debates deserves to be placed in the infobox with the other two candidates. Common sense would also dictate that just because you don't feel he warrants inclusion does not permit you to impose your viewpoint on others arbitrarily. In addition, even if you remain obstinate to these facts, his significant news coverage would meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Friday's Tampa Bay Times had not one but two articles on him and his affect on the race (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/libertarian-lucas-overby-could-play-spoiler-in-race-to-replace-bill-young/2164635) (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/libertarian-lucas-overby-eyes-pinellas-congressional-seat/2164665). On Thursday, in addition, the Tampa Bay Tribune declared him the winner of the debate (http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/the-race-to-replace-young-offers-clear-choice-20140206/), again a significant and notable achievement. This is major coverage in major newspapers. Enough said. He meets Wikipedia's criteria despite your arbitrary protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.238 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sink, Bircher, Overby poll (or for that matter, the Sink, Peters, Overby Poll) has no bearing on this decision because Jolly won the republican nomination, not Bircher or Peters.

Also, please note that online "who won the debate" polls are often terribly unscientific and mean absolutely nothing (unless they are related to presidential general election debates). As an example, there were a significant number of post debate polls during the republican primaries of 2008 and 2012 showing that Ron Paul had won the debate. However, Ron Paul performed terribly in the primaries of both years, so the most likely reason he won those post debate polls is because of Ron Paul's high support from younger primary voters, who are more attracted to online polls, rather than an indication of actual support from across the spectrum of primary voters.

The other two articles you mentioned are certainly significant, I'll give you that. But the fact remains that Overby's support is not at 5%. Furthermore, if the polling is correct, his support is actually dropping. Now, we don't know how the debate affected his numbers yet, but prior to the debate, his support appeared to be declining.

If more polls do come out and that average rises back to 5%, I'll certainly support his inclusion. But right now, he is staying out of the infobox. We will continue to include him at the bottom along with his polling and endorsement.

Percival5 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He's hit the margin
He is now averaging about 5% and one poll even has him at 12%. I will go on ahead and add him for now, but if he doesn't take a significant part of the vote during the actual election, I'll have to remove him. ✅ PrairieKid (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sink's Picture
For some reason (which we can probably guess), Sink's picture was featured prominently when pulling up this page. There are no pictures of any of the other contenders. The placement and use of Sink's sole picture is highly suggestive that Sink is somehow an incumbent or even the superior/endorsed candidate of the election (or should be so). If we're not going to include all pictures, or at least pictures of each of the candidates from major political parties, on a page describing a special run-off election, then we should not include simply one picture from one such candidate. It gives a false impression; wikipedia should not be used for political endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.201.237 (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We used to have a photo of Jolly, but it was removed from Wikipedia for some reason. Does Wikipedia not have any kind of "No Photo Available" photo to use as a placeholder? I think it would be sufficiently neutral to demonstrate that Sink does not have any kind of superiority, only to indicate that neither Jolly nor Overby, since they have never before held public office, have official public photos. --Vrivasfl (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless corresponding images make it to Commons, prudence dictates that we not in any way place one candidate over others. Collect (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone named "Percival5", who is doubtless a Sink supporter, has put the picture back up but failed to include pictures of other candidates. I'm going to delete it again. As to Vrivasfl's point, it is ridiculous. You only include the Sink picture to indicate that the other people did not hold public office but she did by virtue of her "official" picture? Of course the inclusion of only the Sink picture creates an aura of superiority around her and seems to indicate a preference for her. Either get pictures of the other candidates (there are plenty available) or keep her's off there. If I see her picture next to everyone else's on this page who is running for office, I'll be content and the issue will be closed. Otherwise, it's pretty much a straightforward attempt to get a political endorsement for Sink as the Sink people know that wikipedia is likely the first place many people will go to read about these special elections or the candidates.


 * Relax. I was only asking if Wikipedia had an acceptable placeholder. In the absence of a placeholder, I agree with Collect that prudence dictates. --Vrivasfl (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?
There was a section entitled "Dirty tricks" that was certainly POV. I created it, it was deleted, and then it was moved from the article on Alex Sink, and placed herein. I'm not sure where it belongs. However, this article might make some short mention of the cybersquatting controversy. Since I am involved, perhaps other editors might want to build a NPOV "Controversies" or "horserace" section. Thanks for your input and editing. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See "Campaign website misuse" herein -- not deleted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Relative special election importance
, the reason I'm emphasizing the importance of this edit is because it's needed to balance the preceding point about 'some pundits view it as a bellwether.' That alone gives undue weight to a view that does not accurately represent the political science of special election predictiveness. My edit addresses this, in one sentence, which seems judicious. Just as importantly, I have tried to tailor it to be directly relevant to this special election (even though I agree the general point applies to any special election that is being hyped). But having included 3 references from professional analysts commenting directly on this election, I don't think your comments for removing the edit are fair. If the language is too general, fine, rephrase it, but keep the point being made since the sources (3/4) cited clearly made the point in the context of this election. Omitting relevant balance gives too much credibility to the bellwether notion. Especially when, I would think, the views of the experts are more notable than 'some pundits.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:90F2:1:DDEC:F429:1F2F:F9B8 (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Once we stress "some pundits" we are clearly not claiming "all" so the need to put in meaningless drivel that no election means anything which is always true in this special election is beyond iffy. If we had said "all pundits" then balancing is called for, but this is not "balance" it is simply a platitude true of every single real election ever held.. Cheers. Now since it was added material, the burden is on the person who added it to gain consensus per BRD. I assure you that there is no consensus at this point for inclusion and urge you to follow policy and self-revert per that policy. Collect (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

How civil. Look, it's utter nonsense to say that the sentence implies that 'no [special or general] election mean[s] anything.' This is a discrete point about the relationship between special elections and general elections, made with reference to this particular election: not that it means nothing, but that pundits and the public generally overhype special elections. And it's a point that doesn't have a consensus against; so far only you have objected, and your objections completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) what has actually been written. Moreover, it's reliable sourced content, giving due weight to noteworthy views (more notable than 'some pundits' since it actually involves expert opinion, backed by science), and indeed needed to provide balance to the proceeding sentence. It strikes me as ludicrous that your standard for inclusion allows random pundits to weigh in but not the experts whose views are formed by relevant experience and political science (and said experts are commenting on FL-13 in 3/4 sources). All of those reasons point toward inclusion.


 * I suggest that the platitude is that no election has "meaning" beyond the election, and that this is well-known and is akin to adding "gravity causes things to drop to the floor".  Cheers -=- but you do not appear to have remotely tried to gain consensus for the insertion of pure platitudeness. Collect (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a platitude: most of the public and pundits do not understand the science of special elections, so it's noteworthy because for the vast majority of readers it brings new information. As for getting consensus, I have as much basis for claiming there is one for it as your do for saying there is one against it. And, in fact, I'm trying to reach consensus by bringing it up. So stop reverting. BRD doesn't saying you should just revert (especially with reasons that make no sense, as I've repeatedly explained). And this seems a sentence perfectly amenable to being refined. You've got no good reason to simply revert it - you're the one ignoring policy but not providing a constructive discussion.
 * If you bothered to read any of the sources supplied, neither my edit nor the experts are saying there's no meaning beyond the one election. That is something I'd never claim about any election. But the idea that what I'm saying could apply to "any real election" shows you have no idea what the sources are saying. Because the edit and the sources supply a point that a) only applies to special elections (FL-13 in this case) and b) not that it has no meaning but that FL-13 should not simply be considered a bellwether of 2014 midterms; it's more nuanced and complex than that. Whilst this point does apply to other special elections before other elections, the point is being made with regards to this specific election - the sources also show why it's ridiculous to say this is OR/SYNTH. As the political science says, it's not that there's no predictive power but since it's one small data point it needs to be interpreted with a grain of salt, in the context of other available evidence. That notion is needed to balance the unvarnished preceding sentence.
 * Looking for a third opinion on edit regarding whether FL-13 is a bellwether of 2014 (as discussed above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:90F2:1:DDEC:F429:1F2F:F9B8 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether
 * That is not the question:
 * Some pundits viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections should be "balanced" by
 * Given the district's very evenly divided nature, some pundits viewed this election as a bellwether for the fall 2014 elections.[4] However, professional election analysts warn against overinterpreting the results, as with any special election

or the like, which I regard as simply a platitude in such a case as we do not assert in Wikipedia's voice that it was a "bellwether" at all, only that "some pundits" called it a "possible bellwether" and is also "SYNTH" by giving reasoning not found in the sources, and the use of "however" leading into what is clearly a general platitude applicable to every single contested election ever held . I submit the first sentence is accurate, and follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies, does not engage in OR or SYNTH, and is not stating a platitude as we use the term "possible" which is clearly what some (many?) pundits stated. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me to include both viewpoints (NPOV). We will know whether it was a bellwether soon enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying Candleabracadabra.
 * To briefly go back to Collect; I said you are not reading the sources I've provided because the point they make, which I've tried to capture, simply can not be applied to "every single election." Both I and the sources are making the point about the ability to use special elections as a predictor of succeeding general elections (aka the accuracy of calling it a 'bellwether' and what people mean by it). That point is neither a platitude (this is not a point lay-readers know), nor SYNTH (see, sources). And it's made with reference to the experts views on FL-13, as those experts are commenting directly on this special (even though it's a point that applies to other specials). I still maintain that any standard of inclusion should weight experts views at least as highly as non-experts (aka "some pundits"), so I find it absurd that 'some pundits' deserve mention but not political scientists and professional election analysts. If you're concerned about duplication, eliminate the reference to the pundits and retain the cite of the experts ('limited meaning,' 'what should we read into...', etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:90F2:1:DDEC:F429:1F2F:F9B8 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources certainly support "some pundits call it a possible bellwether" pretty clearly. It is SYNTH to add the "evenly divided" bit, and it is OR to then add the pure platitude that it is not guaranteed to he a bellwether because no one said it had to be a bellwether in the first place.   And the cites you give absolutely apply to every single contested election if you read what they are about.  BTW "pundits" are generally considered "experts" in their field of expertise.  That you somehow thing "pundits" can not be "experts" is certainly an issue to be discussed -- and I feel that your position is errant on that point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources I added do not support the statement "some pundits call it a possible bellwether" because all of the expert sources I provided say that interpretation goes too far. That's why I say they 'caution against overinterpreting it.' That expert opinion and political science is not a platitude: it's putting the data point in context, with an explanation that a large majority of people do not understand (hence not a platitude) - not saying it has no meaning but also refusing to endorse the common (mis)understanding that overvalues that datapoint. The 'evenly divided' wasn't added by me, I simply retained that pre-existing language because it explains why 'some pundits' called it a bellwether. And will you stop making the ridiculous point that what they're saying applies to "every single contested election." They are quite explicitly about trying to put special elections into context. The vast majority of elections are not special elections, but general elections. And pundits can be experts, but most pundits are not qualified political scientists, are the sources I cite are.
 * 538: "Academic studies find that special elections do have some predictive power... The connection does not always work... Nor is it clear that special elections have predictive power above and beyond other factors, like economic performance and generic ballot polls. Still, they seem to provide kernels of useful data." LSCB: "special elections are not necessarily bellwethers — for every case you can cite of one predicting the November outcome, you can cite one that didn’t. No question, the special election shows the arrow is pointing up for Republicans in the fall, but there are better arguments that were available well before FL-13." RPR: "Special elections can be bellwethers — except when they’re not." RCP: "There are very few electoral lessons to be drawn here... To begin with, special elections aren’t bellwethers, except when they are. If that doesn’t sound particularly helpful, well, it isn’t meant to." All of them treat skeptical the idea of bellwethers, since the notion inherently overvalues the data. None say 'this is a bellwether' which is what some pundits do. All of them chide the media hype around so-called 'bellwether' elections. All say other data is generally (if not always) better, and make the point specifically with the FL-13 case. Hence why the sources can't be used for the 'some pundits...' and why they serve to balance and contextualize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.101.148 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources make clear that "pundits" are "experts" in their field, and that saying "it may not be a bellwether" is exactly the same as "it may be a possible bellwether" -- what would be wrong is to assert that it is a bellwether -- as no one can know the future with 100% accuracy.  And a "possible bellwether" is in no place I can find stated to be a "clear indication of a trend" so I ask you give a reliable source for your interesting claim about that meaning.  (Pundit:    1. an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.)   Collect (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to call something a possible bellwether if you can only do so retroactively. People call something a bellwether because they're arguing it's indicative of the future. Definiton: "n. One that serves as a leader or as a leading indicator of future trends. From Middle English bellewether, wether with a bell hung from its neck, leader of the flock." And it's ridiculous to claim that the pundits calling it a bellwether are equivalent to the political scientists whose expertise is in the field on which the comments are being made; prominent columns don't make someone an expert in election science. And the experts are quite clearly saying (as they do with the vast majority of special elections) to refrain from calling it a bellwether, even if it has some value, it is "limited," exaggerated by the media (aka most pundits), and "silly to put too much emphasis on" (like, say, calling it a possible bellwether). Again, having experts (on the topic at hand) comment on special elections (with reference to this particular one), making a point (backed by political science) that runs contrary to most peoples understanding is notable and worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.101.148 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Pundits" in this case are indeed "experts".  And include "political scientists."  The distinction made before is not a real one.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain. Both versions appear reasonable to me. I think that it is difficult to say which one is better and that the final decision is not very important. &mdash; Petr Matas 10:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Simpler, and separate view statements - seems cites support saying 'is a possible bellwether' or 'is viewed as a possible bellwether' as most accurately conveying factually the message in cites that it may be an indication of trend or leader of the future or is viewed as one. This is also in line with bellwether mention at general article Special election. The 'Some pundits say' seems to be editorially deriding (at 'pundit' wording) and not really valid (asking for 'all') to cites or relevant to topic, so 'some pundits say it is a bellwether' seems less desireable a caveat than just the 'possible bellwether'. Having both caveats in there at once seems false to cites and effectively a negative statement. I'll suggest it is clearer that differing views be in separate statements. Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm open to constructive editing. Although, as Collects sources shows, some pundits call it a bellwether (without the 'possible' qualification, it just 'is' to them) so I think we should leave out possible because it's misrepresenting their views. But if you think it's better to separate the two statements to address concerns of how it comes across (in 'wikipedia's voice,' as Collect said), then how's this: (following on from presidential results...) "Given this, some journalists called the election a bellwether for the 2014 midterms.[4] Political scientists cautioned against overinterpreting the results." ?(unsigned)

Um -- many of those quoted are not "journalists" and all are considered "political experts" so I fail to see why you insist on your "bold edit" where basically the article was stable since November 2013,and it is only after the election that you wish to change it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-RS/N

 * @ I've taken a while to reply because I've been busy, and frankly I thought having some space might allow some productivity. To recap my objections about the term possible:
 * I don't think it's the best/accurate representation of the vast majority of the sources (only 2/15 versus the others which add no such modifier). They are by and large arguing (or describing people arguing) that the election is a meaningful indicator.
 * I also think it is flawed to refer to something as a 'possible' bellwether, because you can only claim one way or the other for it to have meaning - for example, one could say 'declining foreclosure rates signal an improving housing market' or 'declining foreclosure rates do not necessarily signal an improving housing market;' but amending either sentence with the term 'possible' makes them platitudinal: you're either claiming the preceding data has indicative power or not; both of those two meanings are possible, but to say those meanings are possible is not the same as identifying which one is claimed to be the right one.
 * I would also say that removing 'possible' doesn't put the claim in "Wikipedia's voice" because we are not stating "it is a bellwether" (in the same way we write "the special election was held on March 11") but that certain people call it that.


 * All that said, I'm willing to, in a gesture of good faith, go along with possible, if you still think it's the best way to categorize those opinions; if you can also agree that the differing views of the political scientists should be included. As I have said previously, it seems fair to say that their opinions are at least as notable as those you cite (journalists is the most neutral thing I can think to call them, though 'pundits' or, say, 'journalists and operatives' but, to be brief, 'political experts' is very much a matter of opinion, and there are certainly accurate and mutually agreeable alternatives). I am still amenable to constructive editing of the subsequent sentence, but one is necessary since their views differ. I still think that we can find something we can both be satisfied with, even if it's not what each consider optimal.


 * Finally, independent of the preceding two issues, I still there's a reasonable complaint about the referencing of the first sentence. Surely, we don't need that many sources to establish the verifiability of the view. On top of that, quoting them is unusual, unnecessary, and messy. Given that, why not change the number cited and their formatting to be consistent with the standard way sources are done, as I tried? 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You were the one who forced the issue -- these sources fully and absolutely back the claim as stated.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the 14 sources above. They seem to be fully supportive of Collect's language. With a google search I found another dozen. This seems to be conclusive. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I've never said his sources don't make clear that pundits call it a bellwether. My primary issue isn't about pundits, which I've never objected to including (though I still think possible doesn't represent their views). My concern is representing the political scientists, who refer to FL-13, but do not call it a bellwether. And as I've tried to outline, their view is at least as notable as any of those cited, but is not represented by current language. This may not be the best analogy, but think of the fact you can find many opinion journalists and lawmakers who do not call global warming anthropogenic versus climate scientists who do. Citing more of the former doesn't address coverage of the latter.
 * @ If you helped find common ground we could move on from this. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for common ground I think that you propose some language here where it can be discussed. I also suggest creating a user name. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, some of those using the word "bellwether" do, indeed, have PoliSci majors in their c.v.s.   The IP is simply being tendentious, as the number of reliable sources for the claim as exactly states is ginormous.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Ok, well my original edit - in contrast to Collect's "Some pundits viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections" - was "Given the district's very evenly divided nature, some pundits viewed this election as a bellwether for the fall 2014 elections. However, professional election analysts warn against overinterpreting the results, as with any special election." To try and account for previous comments here and in R/S, I thought the following wouldn't overstate either side (and, to try to demonstrate good faith, would cede ground to Collect over the 'possible' term): "Some pundits called the election a possible bellwether for the 2014 midterms. Political scientists cautioned against overinterpreting the results." ?
 * @ Again, there are two relevant groups, both notable but with differing viewpoints; and the cites I provided of the views of the professional forecasters/political science are not currently represented. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor point: The "some pundits" was not originally my edit -- it was there for quite some time before your "bold edit". In fact, from November 2013 until the election when a bold editor appeared and tried to remove the "possible bellwether" language. In short - for four months it was there -- until the election occurred. shows the timing of the caveat was inserted as a "bold edit" after the election.  And the use of "however" after the election was finished is a striking sort of revision. represents a very highly interesting sort of "bold edit." Which I found to be non-utile. was my proper reaction to that "bold edit". was bold edit asserting that "professional election analysts" asserted one could not call it a "bellwether" but your main problem is that the sources only had called it a "possible bellwether" in the first place, so the argumentation after the election is suspect. Where language had been in place for four months, it is possible that the desire to eliminate any possible concept that this had been seen as a "possible bellwether" may be more a "political desire" than following WP:NPOV at all. In short, the desire to "balance" an already balanced claim is weird, as is the use of "however" and the apparent desire to label political experts as being "not political science majors" when some of them do have that in their c.v. is outré at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Crossposted from WP:RS noticeboard.
 * Problem is, you are not stating their VIEWS, you are stating the QUALIFIER to those views, and are further inserting it as if it were a rebuttal, which it is not. The VIEWS stated in your own references are, for example,


 * "The special election result does strengthen our belief, as expressed in this space for months, that Republicans are in position not only to hold the House but to add some seats to their House majority in November."


 * "If Jolly wins: Because this is a seat that Sink should win in a neutral year, should she lose despite all her advantages we’ll have another data point that this is not shaping up as a neutral year."


 * "Republicans will almost certainly hold onto the House in 2014. They also have a chance to take back the Senate. But we knew that before the citizens in Florida 13th’s District voted."


 * which, if summarized with a qualifier along the lines of "while statisticians, pollsters and/or political scientists warn that there never is a true bellwether", would be fine. It is the setting up of that qualifier as if it were simple repudiation of OTHER peoples prognostication that makes this not WP:NPOV/WP:RS.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ (& @): I'm happy accepting the distinction you outline. To try and summarize their views, "Political scientists caution that whilst special elections are useful data, calling it a bellwether exaggerates its significance." But I'd even go along with "while political scientists warn that special elections never are true bellwethers."  Not my preferred phrasing, but I'd be satisfied with that qualifier. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As we do not aver that it is a bellwether, but only state what reliable sources have stated (that the people quoted call it a "possible bellwether"), I fail to see the need for any such qualifying statements at all. Collect (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @: Only 2/15 aforementioned sources called it a 'possible bellwether.' In addition to the conceptual problems (as outlined with 'foreclosure rates' example), it would be more accurately representative to just say that those pundits call it a 'bellwether.'
 * Now, imputing motive does not address the clear and sound reasons for inclusion; (notability, due weight, balance, etc.). I made the edit after the election only because that's when I noticed the omission, when I visited (along with the rest of the traffic spike) to get the vote count. Moreover, I've never tried to "eliminate any possible concept that this had been seen as a [bellwether]." I never removed (or advocated for the removal) of the sentence summarizing that pundits viewed it as a bellwether. What I did/am trying to do is include notable sources whose views are not represented; their professional expertise and political science qualifications differentiate them from the group whose views are currently summarized, and warrant inclusion. And their views (as the sources I presented indicate) have been consistent before and after the election. To say the current sentence is balanced is odd, when there is complete omission of the critical analysis of this notion by the political scientists. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted Every single source used the term or its equivalent Not "2 out of 15" so your claim is not only errant but grossly errant.  Second, some of the people quoted are "political scientists" so your desire to assert that all political scientists say it is "not a possible bellwether" is fallacious.   Some of the "pundits" are political scientists, and some are among the most renowned political experts in the US.  Now can we get away from your tendentious assertions and leave the material which had been there for four months alone?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep egregiously misreading what I have said. I said 2/15 (9 CBS, 15 WWSB) called it a "possible bellwether" to emphasize that removing 'possible' and retaining 'bellwether' is the most accurate representation of the sources because the vast majority do not add a qualifier-adjective when describing the special election (in addition to the conceptual problems with the phrase). I did not dispute that they all described it as a bellwether.
 * You also keep asserting that some of those in your sources have political science degrees. First, you have supplied no links establishing that, despite my own stated difficulty in verifying that ANY (let alone a significant number) of those pundits have that education (in contrast to some I could verify with journalism degrees). Second, even if you were right that some did have that education, it wouldn't nullify the overall judgment of the sources I cite (both academic political scientists, and professional forecasters) whose expertise is different (more narrow and deeper in this topic) to the journalists and political operatives you cite, and whose critical opinions are notable. Again, I would make the comparison with the parallel of professional climate scientists versus lawmakers and opinion journalists (however respected the latter group may be and even if they might have relevant degrees). Even other users have acknowledged the distinction and the notability of the people I cite. It's false to keep asserting that (even renowned) journalists have the same specialty. It's even more bizarre when, of the only 2 people you have highlighted, one (Adam Smith) has accolades from *journalism* organizations for reporting on politics generally (which, need we say, is not the same thing as political science data analysis), and the other (Chris Cillizza) does not call FL-13 bellwether - in fact, like my sources, he said "special election are, well, special." 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of 15, how many used the word "bellwether" or language substantially identical to "bellwether"?  Take your time.  Then add up the number of people quoted in those sources as well, while we are at it.  Then note that some of them are among the top political experts in the US (including "top political reporter" etc.), and that some had PoliSci majors in college.  Again, feel free to take your time on that.  BTW, Cillizza said Whether or not what happened Tuesday in Florida is a bellwether of anything, it will unnerve Democrats and energize Republicans. And, that matters.


 * Add WaPo Election Day in Florida's 13th Congressional District isn't for another 11 days. But voters have already been casting thousands of absentee ballots in the closely-watched bellwether special election to replace the late Republican Rep. C.W. Bill Young for weeks. ... In a close race, everything matters. And when it comes to absentee ballots -- which have mattered a lot in this district in the past -- the advantage appears to be with Sink.   Stating "bellwether" as a fact before the election.  Collect (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. "I did not dispute that they all described it as a bellwether." Can you not see the distinction between sources which say "bellwether" and which say "possible bellwether"? I have always agreed that the pundits say the former, but don't think it's accurate to describe them as saying the latter. I don't know how to spell that out more clearly for you.
 * Not to mention the fact that you still have failed to verify your claim about those with Pol Sci majors. More to the point, the distinction between someone who professionally reports on political news versus those who professionally analyze and forecast on election data (whose view is consistent with academically published political science)? That is a significant difference. The latter group is notable. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You asserted:
 * Only 2/15 aforementioned sources called it a 'possible bellwether.' 
 * Where every single one of the sources did use the term "bellwether" or the like, where more than a dozen other sources all use the term, and where you asserted that Cillizza did not use the term, and I show that he absolutely did use the term ... I fear your tendentiousness is combined with a clear refusal to admit that you made an extremely misleading claim.   The "possible bellwether" term was used as the least contentious claim imaginable -- yet you appear to insist that it is somehow makig a statement of fact that it is a bellwether, which is clearly not what the claim is -- the claim is really that "people skilled in the art of politics including experts in politics, political journalism, etc. stated that it was a 'possible bellwether'"   and you have not offered a single source contradicting that claim.   And I asserted that some of those quoted do have majors in PoliSci -- and I suggest it is now up to you to "prove the negative" after your repeated edit war here and posting ot the same comments over and over.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was quoting verbatim. As both the context of the preceding discussion and my own sentence made clear: "Only 2/15 aforementioned sources called it a 'possible bellwether...' it would be more accurately representative to just say that those pundits call it a 'bellwether.'" That is not me make a misleading claim, it's you blatantly ignoring what I've written, which you do again and again. For example, I haven't "insist[ed] that it is somehow making a statement of fact that it is a bellwether." I've said a) that it is more accurate (both conceptual and per the sources) to the describe the pundits (political journalists and/or operatives) as saying they believe the special is a "bellwether" rather than "a possible bellwether" b) The view of the political scientists and forecasters is different and at least as notable, so it makes sense to accord these experts due weight, and balance is demanded to supply NPOV (since one-sided omission of relevant and notable views is POV). You have not once defended the double standard of why pundits/political journalists views deserve inclusion but the experts on election analysis (as professional forecasters and per political science) do not, when all the aforementioned policy runs in favor of inclusion. You say I've posted comments again and again, but I've been forced to repeat/clarify because you seem incapable of reading what I write. You've consistently misunderstood what I or the sources have said despite being very clear. Even your most recent comments (see: 2/15) demonstrate this.
 * Also, Cillizza is mostly tangential to my point, but he is not calling FL-13 special a bellwether. You quoted him saying it matters - and it's true what he says, it matters because it has an impact - but he does not call it a bellwether. He calls special elections 'special' as I quoted. Whilst he does use the term 'bellwether' he uses it in the same post where he suggests special elections are not bellwethers (aka it follows the paragraphs where he says why specials are 'special') and he uses it in the noncommittal sentence 'whether or not...' The second [22] WaPo link is not written by Cillizza.
 * The idea that is incumbent upon me to "prove the negative" only demonstrates your lack of extending good faith at any point in this discussion, refusal to reach for common ground even once, and inability to supply verification of your claim. I will wait to see if or  reply and whether they are able to help reach consensus - though I note it seems to me you're the one with the tendentious view: every other commentator has called my edit reasonable, or worthy of inclusion if modified (which I have tried to do to satisfaction). If not, I see no alternative but to go to DR/N. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 2406, the long term previous formulation was and is stable and well ref'd. I don't find your proposed edit an improvement. I would say that consensus here is for the previous edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reset on ascribing importance
That's a lot of text for such a little bit of text. Don't think, in THIS case, the edit conflict is as unresolvable as it sounds.

Area of agreement

 * 1) The Special Election had little practical importance, in the sense that no balance of power or change of vote potential was going to occur, and the "term" was going to be short. The most important aspect was that it was seen as a test run, bellwether, fundraising opportunity, infrastructure building opportunity, chance for off-season employment of advisors, opportunity to create a narrative/spin, or any other non-governing interest. All four editors agree that the term "bellwether" was the most common.
 * 2) All four editors, including the IP have gone out to find references, and there is a consensus that, among pundits, use of the term "bellwether" was pretty universal. This would lead not to repudiation, but to the stripping of weasel words from the sentence. It would be better if there were some secondary source that surveyed punditry and could say that it was "universal" (probably not), or "majority", but the present phrasing that only "some" pundits, and that they called it a "potential" bellwether are unnecessary and misrepresent the extent of commonality among opinions. All four editors have done the research, and all have come to the conclusion that it was near unanimous, but stating so would be (WP:OR), though by consensus, true.
 * 3) All four editors agree that political scientists and professional pollsters GENERALLY do not use the term "bellwether" and they disapprove of use of the term by pundits and news sources, and this can be helpful in a WP article.

Area of disagreement

 * 1) IP wants to include the admonition in consensus point 3, Collect and Capitalismojo do not. I believe that the IP has a point, and that Collect and Capitalismojo also have a point. I believe that IP's point that talk of "bellwethers" is considered by pollsters as reckless/imperfect and the analysis by pollsters/political scientists is valid. CandC's point that only including this admonition misrepresents that the difference in how people generally talk about election results amounts to two diametrically opposed sides of an argument IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE. They are correct that it does not.

Some pundits viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections.

The race attracted wide attention, as pundits viewed the election as a bellwether for fall 2014 elections[][]. While discounting the idea of bellwethers, the results confirmed or supported political scientists' view that the public sentiment favored Republicans.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input Anonymous. I'll confirm for the record that I agree with your analysis of the discussion, and (imo) agree your suggested edit address aforementioned issues. Also, if I understand correctly that you're tossing up on the terms, I'd voice my preference for "corroborated" / "strengthened" / "supported" over "confirmed." 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research by editors - it uses what reliable sources stated, and the fact is that the statements about it being a "possible bellwether" were widely reported in reliable sources on the national level. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect: please READ the posts by other editors. No-one is advocating WP:OR, the limits of WP:OR are not even being approached. The above post tries to very specifically define where statements fall within and outside WP:OR. Specific input from you would be appreciated, and used; boilerplate is not appropriate. Please also note that editors are trying largely to AGREE with you, but improve the article. I know this is not the norm in political articles, but the IP is in fact listening to comments and compromising when appropriate.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I read every post -- so your ad hom is not applicable. The facts are simple:  Many RS sources stated the opinions of noted journalists; experts,  and politicians that this would be a "possible bellwether".  No one has said "This is a bellwether" nor do we make any such assertion in Wikipedia's voice.   In Wikipedia we use what the reliable sources state, and give proper weight to what they state.  As for your "boilerplate is not appropriate" that also is weird -- Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and citing them to indicate what they say is proper here.  And if the GOP won, then is it a Captain Obvious statement that the public favoured the GOP, and if the Democrats won, the public sentiment favoured the Democrats.  For Wikipedia to set itself up as Captain Obvious is inane.  And it is odd that no editor here disputed the term's usage until after the election. D'oh.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can clarify. First, you say "Many RS sources stated the opinions... that this would be a "possible bellwether"." We understand and agree that the sentence is trying to convey the opinion of the cited writers. But the objection is how well we are doing it. The distinction is that 15/15 aforementioned sources say "bellwether", 2/15 say "possible bellwether." So given this (in addition to the conceptual problems with the latter phrase), we think removing the unnecessary word "possible" is a more accurate way to represent the RS. Hence why "The race attracted wide attention, as pundits viewed the election as a bellwether for fall 2014 elections." is following the RS.
 * Second, the current sentence doesn't represent other notable RS (the links I cited). Inclusion of one group (pundits/commentators/journalists who do call it a bellwether) and omission of the other group (political science-informed professional forecasters that don't) is contrary to WP policies and guidelines of NPOV/Due Weight/Balance/RS. The best way I can think to show why the edit suggested is not platitudinal/so-called 'Captain Obvious' is by explaining what value Anonymous' edit adds. It alludes to:
 * Political science's more complex, nuanced, and accurate explanation, that regardless of whom won, it's scientifically wrong to say "[I]f the GOP won, then is it a Captain Obvious statement that the public favoured the GOP, and if the Democrats won, the public sentiment favoured the Democrats." Political scientists said that - per RS - a Sink win would not prove public sentiment favored the Democrats but that candidate quality trumped anti-Democratic public sentiment (based on polls, and turnout dynamics), and that it would not change their forecasts in favor of Democrats.
 * The fact that pre-existing forecasts of the midterms existed; and
 * The idea that, despite not being a bellwether, the race does have a little bit of value - in this case, to reinforce the pre-existing (statistical and historical data-driven) forecasts.
 * Those 3 facts are not obvious to layreaders - that political sciences discounts special election-bellwethers, that there were pre-existing forecasts for the midterms, and that this data point was consistent with them (rather than contrary to them). These are RS points that readers may find value in. Hence why "While discounting special-elections as bellwethers, the results reinforced political scientists' view that the public sentiment favored Republicans in 2014." is not a platitude and worth including. 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IOW, you aver that since no election can be called a bellwether according to "experts", that therefore using "possible bellwether" as being the most conservative wording of a large number of sources should therefore be objected to.  I demur.  We use what the sources state, and the number of sources using the word "bellwether" is very large.  And I recognize Captain Obvious claims made after the election be just that.  "A Republican won - ergo the public favoured the Republican"  is just that.   And where 15/15 sources cited use a term - that is reasonably clear (I did not add another hundred or so, as the citations otherwise prior to the election not using the term are minimal, and those made after the election appear to be "spinning" the election)  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A) Yes, there are a very large of number of sources using the word "bellwether;" there are a small minority using "possible bellwether." That makes the former more accurate. The idea that 'possible' is more desirable because it's 'softer' is not only debatable, but irrelevant - the term is neither necessary nor representative.
 * B) We've clearly identified how the edit is non-obvious, value-adding, and supported by policy. It's not conveying the simplisticly incorrect "A Republican won - ergo the public favoured the Republican" because that means the latter judgment hinged on the result but that overvalues special elections. Rather, "the Republicans are favored this year, this data point was consistent" aka it's conveying the context and the relative weight of this one data point. Those 3 facts I outlined - they are not obvious and they are notable. Even if we went along with your caricature of point 3, the edit would still be adding value through the other 2 points, in which case the edit is justified. I mean, you agree that my references are not represented in the current language, and you haven't disagreed with at least 2 of the value-added points I made about their notability(?), so if that's right you should let us make the edit? I've said before, and think that  would concur, if you would concede point B, we'd be happy leaving 'possible' there to satisfy you, if that would get a (relatively) consensus edit?
 * (P.S. The reason I keep saying that political scientists don't call special elections bellwethers is that there is such thing as a bellwether county during a concurrent election but that's because candidates on the ballot, timing, turnout, and political climate are identical - i.e. all the factors that make a special elections not a bellwether.) 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is a "value adding" edit. From my reading, Collect doesn't seem to agree that this is a good addition "supported by policy". You have made a thoughtful argument that means something to me. If there is a formulation that can be agreed to here I am all in favor. Please share your proposed compromise language and lets discuss. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I've slightly tweaked the edit suggestion Anonymous made; we think it is accurate to the RS, whilst including the RS currently omitted that have value: "The race attracted wide attention, as pundits viewed the election as a bellwether for fall 2014 midterms. While discounting special elections as bellwethers, the results supported political scientists' view that the public sentiment favored Republicans." 2406:E000:90F2:1:C5C5:C413:70A3:C376 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clearly been long enough to discuss it. I assume the lack of response to the suggested compromise language means you have no objection to it? 2406:E000:93E1:1:2D7E:6736:916E:20EC (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Added "but not certain" in current language as certainly using simple language to express the "if" caveat. Collect (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You (should) know full well that does not address the concern that there is no adequate language to represent and cite the views of scientists/forecasters. This "The race attracted wide attention, as pundits viewed the election as a bellwether for fall 2014 midterms. While discounting special elections as bellwethers, the results supported political scientists' view that the public sentiment favored Republicans." seems to account for both groups of relevant sources in a fair way. Now, I don't think "possible, but not certain," is an accurate way to summarize the sources you've linked to. I'm happy to meet you half way and accept that description (amending the above quoted language) if you'll accept the rest so we can move on; is that acceptable? 2406:E000:93E1:1:2D7E:6736:916E:20EC (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear - no -- we do not "negotiate" what is required by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.   If the issue was to reinforce that it was not a "bellwether as a matter of fact" then the wording is absolutely sufficient.   I had thought the CNN usage of "possible" was about as far as was reasonable, but I added the extra verbiage to make sure no one could say Wikipedia was averring that it is a "bellwether."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to negotiate policies - I'm trying to follow them whilst demonstrating an effort to resolve it in a mutually agreeable. The issue, as said repeatedly, is that a) notable views, referenced with reliable sources are not currently included; and b) that you are not accurately summarizing current sources. The current sources HAVE CLAIMED that it is a bellwether; and the omitted sources, which deserve inclusion per policy, state that, scientifically speaking, that is not an accurate description, notwithstanding the fact that it is a useful point of data. The way you're writing not only still fails to include the later while misrepresenting the former. 2406:E000:93E1:1:2D7E:6736:916E:20EC (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Baseless reversion by MarnetteD
The number of sources is redundant to establish the views, and gives unbalanced weight. As to the second point, the text failed to include the views of professional forecasters as opposed to the pundits, so the edit also addressed that by including the distinction and sources. The tidy-up is appropriate and edit is notable. Sb101FV (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)