Talk:2014 United States Senate election in North Carolina

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status
Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

article lead about the runoff
Hello all,

The lead stated a runoff will take place in July. However it is much more complicated. The second placed candidate has the right to request that a contest be held. For the full details, see section (b)(1) the NC General Statutes here:. If no request is made, the person who won the first primary gets the nomination. In the 2010 US Senate Democratic primary for Sen. Burr's seat candidate Cal Cunningham requsted a contest. For details, see. I know this is pedantic, but it's important to be accurate. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct and thank you for the addition. Tiller54 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Do NOT remove the Libertarian from the Infobox
Libertarian Sean Haugh is the candidate for a party that is legally recognized by the State of North Carolina. Do NOT remove him from the info box. Such removals will be reported as vandalism. Eric Cable |  Talk  15:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. His campaign has received national news coverage in several outlets. It would be a violation of NPOV to remove him. Shanedk (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're about 2 months late to this discussion lol. But as Haugh continues to poll well over 5%, he will remain in the infobox until the election. Tiller54 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of bad links in the polling section.
Many of the links in the polling section no longer work. Many lead to a more recent version of said poll. Eric Cable |  Talk  15:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific, please? I've updated the Rasmussen link (whenever they put out a new poll, they give it a generic name and only make it more specific when it's superseded by a newer one of the same race) but I couldn't see any others that needed updating. Tiller54 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there WILL be three names on the ballot in November.
Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, the bottom line is Sean Haugh, the Libertarian WILL be on the ballot in November. The State of North Carolina recognizes THREE parties: Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian. If a person who is qualified to hold the office pays the filing fee and says “Libertarian” for their party, they get on the ballot. PERIOD. Those of you who continue to vandalize this article by omitting valid, accurate, and encyclopedic information are simply WRONG. I will not give-in. I will not shut-up. Eric Cable |  Talk  12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, EricCable. I'm not sure why you're accusing people of telling you to "shut up". No-one has said that, or anything like that. Neither has anyone removed mention of the Libertarian nominee - the Libertarian primary has its own section and he is listed as a candidate in the general election. What I and User:GageSkidmore have objected to are the edits you have made whereby you have "broken" the polling table - that is, causing it to look like this, with an unnecessary column (for a candidate who's been in 1 out of 27 opinion polls) and adding unnecessary commentary like "(Without the Libertarian Party candidate included in the questions.)" to the polling source, which inflates the size of the row. It is not "vandalism" to remove a column for a candidate who has only been polled once in twenty-seven polls and no "valid, accurate, and encyclopedic information" has been removed, just a column in a table. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ?The purpose of any infobox is to cover what is in the article at a glance for readers. As long as the article body covers a candidate, it is improper to not show that fact in the infobox.   As the purpose of infoboxes is well-established, it is improper to avoid proper use of the infobox.  Even if the third candidate were a loon or anything else, Wikipedia does not use infoboxes to remove information from casual readers.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Libertarian candidate has been included in a single opinion poll out of twenty-seven taken. There's no evidence (yet) of him having any impact on the race whatsoever, which is what the criteria for inclusion in the infobox is. If he posts significant numbers in another opinion poll, then yes, I would argue for his inclusion in the infobox. However, election infoboxes do not automatically list every candidate. The major-party nominees are listed, as are minor/third party/independent candidates that are shown to be having a significant impact on the race. Tiller54 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Collect in keeping the Libetarian in the Infobox. Eric Cable |  Talk  15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Tiller54, thanks for commenting. I was under the impression you were unwilling to talk. I have shortened the comments under the names of the Public Policy Polling poll to make them not any wider than the names of the polls and therefore you should no longer see a problem with the width of the name column. As for there being a column for the Libertarian, I am going to be persistent on that point. It is valid to state that the Libertarian was not included in a poll if that is the case. The fact that he was omitted from a poll is a valid piece of information because as you can see in the Public Policy Polling including him or not alters the poll a good deal. If you want to keep removing the column, then I guess I will just have to keep putting it back and re-open the dispute. Eric Cable |  Talk  15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what gave you that impression. You had made only 2 sets of edits to this page before you came on the talk page and accused other editors of "vandalising" the page and telling you to "shut up". As for the infobox, no sooner had I posted my comment, than I found a new poll where Haugh is at 8%. I have duly re-added him to the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for a separate column for the Libertarian candidate, I wouldn't object if you were to go ahead and do that now. But instead of putting "not included", just use the "—" dash to indicate his non-inclusion, it's much easier that way. Tiller54 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, good conversation now. Let's compromise and put "N/A" instead of "Not included" the dash indicates "zero" in my opinon. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone's at 0%, we put 0%. "N/A" indicates that he was polled but the information is not available for some reason. Dashes indicate non-inclusion. Tiller54 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, considering the point of disagreement we were at 5 hours ago, I will agree to this point. All is well. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

excess polls
There is no actual benefit to a long series of monthly polls in any election article. Polls from two years ago included. In fact, polls are ephemeral at best, and listing a dozen where no changes of any magnitude occur is silly and not of benefit to readers. It would be like listing under "interest rates" the interest rates at a bank for every month - it is only changes which make a difference to anyone. Collect (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Election articles do not just cover the six months before the election, or however long you are proposing only including polls from. They are about the entire race, from start to finish. Polls illustrate the changes in support and electoral prospects of the candidates and are thus absolutely relevant, whether they're from the week before the election or a year before the election.
 * There's no better example for this than the polling for the Republican primary on this very page. Thom Tillis, who won the primary with just under half the vote, started out in single digits. The polls show the rise in his fortunes as he went from 2% to 46%. Likewise, general election polls show Hagan initially with a sizeable lead over Tilis, which has since narrowed. So yes, there have been changes, which clearly contradicts the point you're trying to make. Tiller54 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And hypothetical polls in detail are of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Really. The purpose of the article is to benefit the reader. Collect (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. They illustrate the relative electoral fortunes of other, perhaps less electable, perhaps more electable candidates, who either chose not to run or were defeated in the primary. Hypothetical polls are absolutely relevant to election articles, which are about the entire election, not just "X vs Y for 6 months before the polling date". I would also note that including hypothetical polls in a separate collapsible section was part of a compromise that was made around the time of the 2010 elections. Some editors wanted to remove them, others wanted them to remain where they were. The agreement that was reached was to include them in collapsible sections, so they were hidden but easily accessible. Finally, I have no idea how you can honestly claim that removing information can in any way possibly "benefit the reader". I would also note the message at the top of this very page where it says "If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them". That includes any polling with them included in. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh really? I would point out that this is not accepted editorial practice elsewhere.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC - inclusion of "hypothetical polls" covering multiple years before election
Is the inclusion of 37,000 characters of "hypothetical polls"  in an article on a current election useful to readers? 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as it's in a collapsed box. I'm not good with tables, but there should be a way to condense the material. (Note that I am first to comment but I am not the RfC initiator.) Instaurare (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, ditto the above. Jehorn (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? In an collapsed box that would be neat and useful. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

comments

 * Sorry, Collect but as an inclusionist I have to side with Tiller54 on this point. The section was hidden/expandable and is not really hurting anything.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Legally it may reach the level of "copyright violation" in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that's clearly nonsense. If that were the case, pages like this wouldn't even exist.
 * I don't think this is even about being an "inclusionist" vs an "exclusionist", the polls are clearly relevant as I have outlined above - election articles cover the entire process, not just the "X vs Y for 6 months before the polling date" stuff. They illustrate the relative electoral fortunes of other, perhaps less electable, perhaps more electable candidates, who either chose not to run or were defeated in the primary and removing them on the basis of "they don't benefit the reader" doesn't make any sense at all. They're not clogging up the page as they're hidden, which was the whole point of the compromise that was struck some time after the 2010 elections. Finally, I would again point to the note at the top of this page which states "If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them". That includes any opinion polls they were included in. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One year of actual polling for an election may make sense (polls from Dec 2013 on). 100+ polls not remotely related to the actual election is useless.   And "hidden" material still uses up Internet bandwidth -- it is all downloaded by anyone opening the page.  Lastly, when one uses over a hundred polls from a single source, one may be violating copyright law in the first place - which is a major concern of Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, setting arbitrary dates for inclusion is ridiculous. Election articles do not just cover the eleven months before the election, or however long you are proposing only including polls from. They are about the entire race, start to finish. Look at the Republican primary polling - Tillis started out at 2% and rose through subsequent polls to 46%, which is the percentage of the vote he got in the primary election. Arguing that polls with defeated candidates in is "not remotely related"? That's absolutely bogus. This is an election article about the entire history of the election, of course it's relevant. As for the copyright claims, it's not a single source that's being used, it's about two dozen different sources. And there's no copy-and-paste job going on here, it's just reporting the toplines. Tiller54 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care with regards to the Hypothetical polls. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I suggest inclusion of masses of data which was "hypothetical" in the first place, and covers almost entirely a single polling source, and covers over one hundred polls from that single source   is not only unnecessary to this article on a current election, but is of no value to Wikipedia readers. In fact it is "data for the sake of data" only. Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, the entire premise of your argument is faulty. This isn't an "article on a current election". As I've said several times now, scroll up to the top of this page where it very clearly states: "This is an historical article". This is an article on the entire election process and not just Kay Hagan vs Thom Tillis for a year before the election. As such, yes, hypothetical polling between Hagan and for example, the runner-up in the Republican primary is relevant and is absolutely of value to readers. Like with, for example, this page, years after the election, people may want to see how Hilary Clinton polled against John McCain, like they may want to see how Hagan polled against other Republican challengers (especially if she goes on to beat Tillis). So no, it absolutely is not "data for the sake of data". It's relevant and it's of historical value. Oh and no, it's not "100 polls from a single source", it's about twenty sources actually, over the course of 18 months. Tiller54 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough, the election has not yet taken place.  In other words, a "current" election.  Similar articles do not contain the huge amount of data qua data found in this article.  And none show the same disregard for copyright that this one does.   As for what you seem to think an encyclopedia is for -  you err.  It is not where "all the data anyone might remotely think useful  someday is kept in neat columns".  That is what we have "references" - so folks can look up all the trivial tidbits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In five months time, when the election's over, this will still be a historical article. Thus, presenting no information beyond the X vs Y horse race robs readers of relevant and valuable information. As I've also pointed out before, you're wrong. Similar articles do indeed contain hypothetical polling. Again, this is not "trivial" information, it's directly relevant to the article, which is about the entire election process. Tiller54 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And it will still be the only Senate campaign article on all of Wikipedia with nearly 200 polls listed in detail.  Cheers.   Wikipedia is not supposed to be the "repository of every factoid imaginable on a topic" - it is supposed to be an encyclopedia.   Collect (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First it was 100 polls, now it's 200? And what level of detail are we talking about here? The same for every other poll posted on Wikipedia. There's no extra detail in the polls on this page, there's just a few more of them because, as one of the "tossup" races, it's received more attention. And no, it's not the only election article with a lot of polling. Including "every factoid imaginable" would be if we included the crosstabs, copy-and-pasted the polling companies' statements, or posted every single candidate's favourability rating. The head-to-heads between Hagan and, for example, Gregg Brannon, the runner-up in the Republican primary, most certainly are relevant, particularly when said polling shows that he did better against Hagan than Tillis does. In five months, when this election has happened, the relative electability of the Republican candidates most certainly will be relevant, just as it is now. Tiller54 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140201163607/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/21/4629659/retired-doctor-another-candidate.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/21/4629659/retired-doctor-another-candidate.html#.UuFlEKX0B0s

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 02:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012084757/http://kayhagan.com:80/ to http://www.kayhagan.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)