Talk:2018 United States Senate election in Texas

Republican primary less likely?
has reverted the move that Michael McCaul and others declined their Senate run against Cruz. This is the ref. Also: on this ref saying: "His remarks would seem to shut the door on the possibility that McCaul might challenge fellow Texas Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018." Isn't that right? Is he really declined his Senate run? Are there others declined as well? – 2001:E68:5435:1005:D9D9:7703:6298:5637 (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you read the articles, they don't even mention several of the people you're claiming have declined. Those three people have not declined this race. Don't make things up. Earthscent (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But this says: "His remarks would seem to shut the door on the possibility that McCaul might challenge fellow Texas Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018." Did Michael McCaul really decline his possibility to challenge Ted Cruz? – 2001:E68:5435:1005:D9D9:7703:6298:5637 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * None of that is important. McCaul has not said he's not running, therefore he hasn't declined to run. And Bush and Pierson haven't declined either. The article you're citing has no relevance. Earthscent (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Poll reverts
Just for the record the only reason I didn't change the R poll is that I didn't know the affiliation of the groups involved. Point taken otherwise.  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cruz campaign has faced criticism for sending voters a fund-raising letter made to look like an official legal summons
The below has been reverted for being undue. I disagree. It is covered by multiple reliable sources for months, has been a considerable point in the news and is written impartially here. Of course, improvements might be made. If Cruz's opponent has been involved in a similar controversy which was covered by reliable sources we should also include this. I am re-adding this in with more sources to. I'm also open to the idea of placing this in other sections, but didn't think it made sense to create a section for this on its own and didn't see a good section to put it in currently. Excluding this information strikes me as undue.
 * The Cruz campaign has faced criticism for sending voters a fund-raising letter made to look like an official legal summons. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the point of WP:UNDUE – my objection is that it's given a degree of prominence (featured in the lede along with nothing else related to the campaign) that gives the appearance of undue weight and inveighing against Ted Cruz. Your earlier edits on other articles don't give me confidence that that isn't your motivation here. Mélencron (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As a neutral person on this, if you were a voter looking for information on the election and this article was selected, there would not be sufficient information to show this. Other elections with major controversies have mentions within the article (United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017). I agree that this needs to be included for clarity UnknownM1 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Including this in the lede makes it look like it has been the most notable event of the campaign, and that's just not the case. It is definitely WP:UNDUE to include this material, especially in the lede, and to not include literally anything else about the campaigns. You could make a similar argument for adding Beto's DUI as a significant campaign event, but that would also be wildly undue. This article should be an encyclopedia article, not a place for documenting the news cycle of campaign events. Marquardtika (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering its a potential breach of state law, I think its a bit more than a DUI from before the election. However I am also willing to accept its exclusion as long as there isn't further legal trouble as a result. If there is, an investigation into illegal campaign actions is more than past the threshold for inclusion. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the discussion here. I see your point about it being in the lead giving the wrong impression. What section do you think would be good to place it in? Doesn't seem to fit in any of the current ones. While I prefer not to have "controversy" sections and integrate into articles, creating a controversy section seems like the best option here until there is a better spot for it.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * UnknownM1, there was no breach of any law. See Snopes. We definitely shouldn't start a "Controversy" section (see WP:CSECTION). There's no reason to include this in the article at all, especially since it would be the only content about campaign events. It would also be WP:UNDUE in the body. This story lasted one news cycle. It doesn't have any WP:LASTING significance. Marquardtika (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree controversy sections are not ideal--although per WP:CSECTION they are USUALLY discouraged. It's not a blanket rule. I am open to other sections and think it should stay in the lead until we have a better subcategory to put it in. This is a page about an election, so it is necessarily going to be about the run up to the election and results--campaign events make a lot of sense here. Finally, as I wrote already above, "It is covered by multiple reliable sources for months", not just a single news cycle. Marquardtika would have known this if they read my edit summary before reverting my revised version of this which included addition sources.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)