Talk:2022 Maryland gubernatorial election/Archive 1

Discription
seems to have a fascination with changing the short title to "replacing (insert current office holder)." He has done this across almost all the 2022 election pages. It seems a little strange and unilateral. Anyone have anything to add here? Jdavi333 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't misconstrue my edits. I have done that for three of the thirty-four Senate elections and seven of thirty-six gubernatorial elections. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Declared?
How loosely are we using the word "declared"? I can't find any source saying Robin Ficker has declared his candidacy. There's a picture of sign; there's a website listed on the sign; there's even a picture of him holding an identical sign; but nowhere have I found a reliable source saying Robin Ficker has declared his candidacy. Do Wikipedia sourcing rules not apply to this page? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A better source has been found. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-publisher Sources
To eliminate politics1 by creating content, fist should be necesary a source that confirm it. And then it is necessary to take into account that every poll, every rating chart and every article is self-created content and self-published by the company in charge. To eliminte self-created content would not allow to use as source the original polling reports in pdf and would not allow to include the rating charts because there are not 3rd sources that republish them. In overall terms the arguments used by some are very awful and applied ad hoc, and wikipedia editors should not be entitled to decide which self-content is ok or not. politics1 is not publishing false content. The concept of potential candidates is open and is being perverted by some editors to eliminate what they want. Most of the news related to potential candidates are based on rumors of very low level, mostly hidden under unnamed sources, that some random journalist is collecting who knows how. Is this about to allow only to use as sources big companies creating and self-publishing their own content? To deny that wikipedia is using very much self-published content, in these articles does not change the reality. Some arguments are being used ad hoc against some concrete sources that are legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.88 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you meant in the first sentence, but overall this seems like an incredibly broad interpretation of what a self-published source is. Your message seems to hold that all journalism and articles are self-published, which is simply not the case. The key difference is editorial oversight. Politics1 admits to being a "one-person operation". Sources like the Washington Post, NBC News, the Cook Political Report etc are emphatically not so. There is a world of difference. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a claim that politics1 is a shelf publisher source, but this claim is just it, not sustained by any source.


 * And second, even the elimination of small sources by being shelf-publisher would not allow to use resources under a single firm, like most books, most phd thesis and much other content of quality. It without entering in the questionable behaviour of eliminating sources because are from small firms and not from bigger companies. There is not doubt the Washington Post is self-publisher as well. The Washington Post, Cook, Sabato, Rasmussen, and many more are creating content and self-publishing it. There is not doubt that the potential candidates included in politics1, fit well the category. There is not false content. It is necessary to forget not what potential candidate means, it requires only to be eligible, and to have some political relevance. The entire potential candidates category is just a preview of which political figures can run or not. It requires not the push forward of some random journalist paid to write it, including weird unnamed sources, that say that others said, and blah, blah, blah... To use this criteria for the potential candidates category only helps the spread of rumors and very low level content paid and published by big companies and interested agents, distorting the true purpose of the category, that is to preview what relevant political figures can be available to run. In all this it is necessary also to take into account that when there is a candidate that files, that express interest, and moves forward actively, or simply declines, is leaves the category and moves to other categories. It really does not make sense to cut sources like politics1 that are publishing accurate content, even with small resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.83 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you read what was written above? Politics1 acknowledges that it is a self-published source. Its own website states that it is a "one-person operation". The big difference between Politics1 and newspapers like the Washington Post is that for Politics1, Gunzburger writes an article, checks it through for errors and publishes it. For the Washington Post, a journalist writes and checks it, then passes it to their immediate editor, who passes it to their editor. News articles in the Washington Post are not self-published. Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP for your concerns about PhD theses. Your argument that everything is self-published doesn't work. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * How can be this link used to say that politics1 is a one person operation considered valid if the rest of the source is not? It should not be considered valid neither. The argument to reject politics1 only allows to big selfpublishers to be considered, because all these editors that you comment are paid by the same source, and most of the time they do nothing. You ignored the rest of the argument. The whole concept of potential candidate is being distorted this way. The whole section is not meeting its role of allowing a preview of the strongest potential candidates eligible to the position. The name should be changed to "Potential candidates included in the big media", or something like it. The source politics1 is not including wrong information, makes not sense to eliminate sources like this because they are one person operated. Much less reliable is the information included in some polls or in some rating charts. I'm not favourable to their elimination, but it is necessary to take into account the low level nature of the information that is being managed in these sections about future elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.111 (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To note that John King, former US Secretary of education, and now confirmed candidate, was introduced in the list of potential candidates with the support of this disputed source, and his name was deleted several times of the list of potential candidates, under the arguments against this type of sources supported by some here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.99.108.169 (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mike Rosenbaum
he declared but it keeps taking away my edit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/baltimore-businessman-enters-maryland-governor-race/ar-BB1gBSMc?ocid=BingNewsSearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.152.236 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The source had to be placed in the article, not just here. I've done that. —ADavidB 04:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ed Tinus
I'm a bit conflicted on where to categorize Ed Tinus. Tinus' Facebook page, which Politics1 (which I believe is the only website to recognize Tinus' candidacy) cites as Tinus' campaign website, says that he's running as a Republican in this election -- but Politics1 also says he's running as a Democrat. Maryland's campaign finance database shows that Tinus previously ran as a Republican in Worcester County in 2018, and the Maryland State Board of Elections' 2022 candidate listing shows that he hasn't filed any paperwork to run in 2022, which makes me question whether he's actually running or not. Can anyone find any additional sources that clarifies Tinus' candidacy and party affiliation? Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Resolved. I found another source saying that he filed as a Republican. Y2hyaXM (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2022 Maryland gubernatorial election
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2022 Maryland gubernatorial election's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "msa": From Brooke Lierman:  From Ned Carey:  From Christopher T. Adams:  From Wayne A. Hartman:  From Lesley Lopez:  From Trent Kittleman:  From Talmadge Branch:  From Mike Griffith (politician): </li> <li>From Heather Bagnall: </li> <li>From Jason C. Gallion: </li> <li>From Sid Saab: </li> <li>From Cory V. McCray: </li> <li>From Jack Young (politician): </li> <li>From Michele Guyton: </li> <li>From Jack Bailey (Maryland politician): </li> <li>From Mike McKay (politician): </li> <li>From John F. Wood Jr.: </li> <li>From Anne Kaiser: </li> <li>From Lisa Belcastro: </li> <li>From Carl W. Jackson: </li> <li>From Daniel L. Cox: </li> <li>From Upper Marlboro, Maryland: </li> <li>From Mike Rogers (Maryland politician): </li> <li>From Lauren Arikan: </li> <li>From Michael Steele: </li> <li>From Chanel Branch: </li> <li>From Jeannie Haddaway: </li> <li>From Alice J. Cain: </li> <li>From Darryl Barnes: </li> <li>From Mary Beth Carozza: </li> <li>From Marlon Amprey: </li> <li>From Nicole A. Williams: </li> <li>From Robert Zirkin: </li> <li>From Obie Patterson: </li> <li>From Martin O'Malley: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

New poll?
WUSA9 is reporting on a new poll that puts Franchot at 17%, Moore and King at 16%, Perez at 12%, Gansler at 6%, and Baker at 5%. I want to add it to the polling chart and table, but the article doesn't mention who ran the poll or whether it was sponsored by a campaign or not. Can anyone try and find the poll they're citing in this article and add it to the page? Y2hyaXM (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like the WUSA9 article has since been taken down. Unless it's brought back up, this issue is resolved. Y2hyaXM (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Jaffe on debates table
Would someone be able to add Ralph Jaffe to the table in the debates and forums section? Though he was not invited to most debates/forums, he participated in the most recent by Bethesda Magazine. I would do it myself but I will be honest I'm not sure how without messing up the table.


 * I've just done that. Y2hyaXM (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RCV Poll
Earlier today, Our Maryland, RCV Maryland, and FairVote released the results of an open-access RCV poll of candidates in the Democratic primary for governor. I was able to find other RCV-based polls from FairVote on other election pages, but I'm not sure whether it belongs here given how the poll was conducted. Should this poll be included on the page? Y2hyaXM (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Order of endorsements within groups?
It seems odd to me that Trump should be the first in the list for Cox and yet someone (whose name is alphabetically after Biden) should be ahead of him in the list for Moore. What is standard for the order of endorsements within groups?Naraht (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's traditionally in alphabetical order, but you're right -- Trump's endorsement should be after Patel's. I've just corrected this, thank you! Y2hyaXM (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad vote totals
10 Nov, 2022: I keep correcting (and someone keeps undoing) errors in the general election vote totals. The vote totals originally said something like: Moore - x votes - y%, and Cox - ALSO AT x votes - z%. This is impossible. It is not possible for two candidates to have *different* vote percentages, but the *EXACT SAME* vote totals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.58.247 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)