Talk:2020 California's 25th congressional district special election

This article confuses the special election with the general election
About half of the people listed here as declared candidates are declared for the GENERAL election of November 2020, for the 2021-2022 term. But this article is about the SPECIAL election for the balance of her 2019-2020 term, which is expected to be called after her resignation becomes effective. Anyone listed here as a declared candidate, but cited to a reference from before October 27, needs to be either removed from the article or cited to a new reference that specifies they are running in the special election; such references would have to be dated after her announcement. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Which endorsements are notable?
I noticed that the endorsements list for Christy Smith includes some members of an individual school district's school in San Francisco. This district is in Los Angeles. Does that really matter? They're technically elected officials, but at a very local level in one district in a different city and a different congressional district on the other side of the state.

I'll boldly remove it myself, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to reply here. Vanilla  Wizard  💙 06:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This entire endorsement section for both Smith and Uygur is polluted with absolute nobodies. Besides what you already pointed out with Smith, Uygur currently has a british voice actor guy with like 3 credits listed as an endorsement, and with many unclear endorsements. (Does “good luck cenk” in a tweet count as an endorsement?). 70.95.215.64 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the threshold for notability in this list should be that an endorser meets one of the following criteria:
 * That the individual making the endorsement has a Wikipedia page of their own,
 * or that the individual holds (or has held) political office at the national level,
 * or that the candidate holds (or has held) a state-level office in California,
 * or that the candidate holds (or has held) a municipal-level office in California's 25th congressional district.
 * And for the endorsements themselves, you're right that we need to make sure that they're actually endorsements. The endorsements which explicitly include the word "endorsement" are fine, but we are running the risk of using original research if we include ones that are vaguely positive. I'd like to think that, if a notable individual expresses clear support for one candidate without ever doing the same for the other candidate(s), it would not be problematic to include them, but I'm open to other viewpoints on that.
 * Another issue I have is that the endorsements page for Christy Smith can't seem to be verified. They all link back to the website "mailchi.mp" which is not Christy Smith's campaign website. That said, if you go to her actual campaign website (christyforcongress.org), you'll find the same list, but that's a primary source with no secondary sources available. For example, she mentions that the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades endorsed her. I searched for news articles about the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, and I found nothing mentioning her. I went to their website, iupat.org, and found nothing mentioning her. I went to their twitter, @goiupat, and found nothing mentioning her. Where did that endorsement come from? If we can't link to anything from the individual/organization, then we can't actually verify that they endorsed her. At least with the Uygur section, we can read what the endorsers actually said and decide whether or not their endorsements were actually endorsements. With the Smith section, there's no reason to believe that any of the endorsements listed are actually endorsements.
 * I wouldn't be against removing any/all endorsements where the source cited does not verify that the individual/organization endorses them (in other words, we need a source other than the list on the campaign website), but I won't do that myself because that would require removing everything listed under the Christy Smith section. For now, I'll tag it as needing better sources. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 06:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarificaton
Can Uygur run in both the special election & the regular election? GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of potential candidates
I see that VietPride10 has removed all potential and declared candidates that did not appear on the preliminary January 10 filing list. I do not agree that all of this content should be completely removed from the article. Both Christopher Smith and Papadopoulos have declared and campaigned for the district, and they both appeared on the December 20 list that appears to concern the elections for the 117th Congress. A certified list on the special election will be released on January 15, and I don't think we should remove these two candidates until then. I'll go ahead and restore them.

As for the list of potential candidates, I think drop-down boxes might be a suitable way of including the content without cluttering the article. The list is sourced, and could conceivably hold relevance. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies for removing Papadopoulous and Christopher Smith, I assumed the list on January 10 were the certified candidates. I think having drop down boxes for the potential candidates that didn't file is good to add back in the article. VietPride10 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but there's no apology needed. If anything I was a bit too direct. On another note; I've restored the lists. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the edits made today (Jan 20).
I disagree with the renaming of the March 3 section. While I am uncertain as to whether this special election strictly qualifies as a primary or a general election, I don't believe the new title is sufficiently descriptive. And there's already another section with the title "General election". I think "March 3 special election and primary" would be more appropriate for the section. I also think the anchor should remain.

While the renaming of the runoff section was alright I don't think it made sense to move it. It is scheduled long before the November election, and should be placed before it.

The "Results" box contains the candidates for the March 3 election and should be placed in that section.

I'll go ahead and change these things.

Friendly regards, BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mike-Garcia-Headshot-768x1152.jpg

Garcia is leading big times by a margin of nearly 17000 votes
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/special/us-rep/district/25

Please include the current numbers. And you can basically call the race for the Republican Garcia, no way Smith is going to net 17000 votes with already 141.000 valid votes being counted. Turnout in the first round 2 months ago showed a number of 162.000 votes.

62.226.84.58 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't basically call anything. We wait for the AP to call it. And in California, there are lots of votes that come in late because they are postmarked today. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And AP has finally called the race for Garcia:

https://apnews.com/ca668232601ca0fec32e8b4d66ea61e3

46.93.240.61 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There we go. I imagine she saw numbers when she conceded that showed she wouldn't close the gap. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Smith has conceded, Garcia has won
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-mike-garcia-retakes-katie-hills-california-congressional-seat

46.93.240.61 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)