Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009

Split and userfy parts
This should be split into 1 article per race, and those races which may or may not happen should be worked on in user-space until there is a need. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When specific races become less-than-speculative, then an article for each race will be created. That's what's happened in past years in other states.  Meanwhile, this article will contain a summary of all those races.  Until then however, this article has too much speculation which ought to be excised.—Markles 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove speculation
If the proposed AFD results in keep (as it seems likely to do), then I propose removing all the grossly speculative language in this article as violative of WP:Crystal. The policy and WP:BB make it clear that it should be removed without debate, I think it should be discussed here first because this would remove a lot of material.—Markles 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you describe grossly speculative. It was kept four votes to two.  Now, the two non-keeps want to agree to gut the article.  Take no action before this appears on the main page at DYK.  I will be hitting the road to go over the hills and through the woods in three or four hours.  Don't come to an agreement between the two of you before I respond.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The four-to-two vote was on deletion. While not a consensus, I agree it was certainly sufficient to reject my proposed AFD and to keep this article.  My current proposal here is to bring this article into policy compliance with WP:Crystal.  As of the current version, the word "should" is used five times to set up the scenarios.  They are just speculation.  That violates WP:Crystal].  It's all very interesting and very well written but it violates [[WP:Crystal.  I would change this article to say that there will be an election in the 5th district.  That's barely speculative and relies on the facts of the moment.  Sure, Rahm could change his mind, reject the WHCOS post and keep his current position, but it's greatly likely that he won't do that and the 5th district seat will become vacant.  The rest of the vacancies were initially written in the article, I believe, with the reps jockeying for the Senate appointment which would have been immanent.  That, in itself, was too speculative to warrant a substantive discussion other than a token sentence, "Some other seats may become available." (That would merit further discussion AFTER the appointment was announced.  Perhaps you could move this current version to your user pages and store them until they become necessary.)  Now that the Senate appointment is very unlikely (what with the Blago scandal), we don't know how that seat will be filled or when or by whom.  (That seat is barely speculative, but its discussion is better served at United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009.)  But further speculation on Reps' seats opening up is far too speculative in violation of WP:Crystal.  I don't own this article, and consensus is required so I welcome further discussion.  WP:Be Bold would seem to encourage a significant editing, but I would prefer a consensus so I decided instead to discuss it here.—Markles 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (PS: I notified the other editors who contributed to the AFD discussion so we can get their input as well.—Markles 15:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Markles asked me to comment. My keep opinion at the afd was based primarily on the fact that there would certainly be at election for Rahm's Senate seat. Sure, various extremely unlikely things could happen that would prevent it, but that's going way to the fringe. Various extremely unlikely things could happen to the next congressional session too, or the next Olympics--most of which would cast similar doubt also on the survival of Wikipedia. At the moment the article has been split, and this part is at United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009, which does clarify matters, because the other case is a little different--the seat may quite possibly be filled without an election (though I personally doubt it)--and a decision is not so obvious. There are obviously a number of possibilities, many of which have already been discussed in news coverage. The article does not discuss all of them: for example, Blagojevich could change his mind and resign after all. (There are examples of other elected officials in somewhat similar situations protesting total innocence and that they will stay till the end, and then being persuaded otherwise.) I think we need the article, because the matter is already the topic of substantial public comment in very reliable sources, such as the (London) Times and CNN, and is thus shown to have even international notability. What we have to do is write the article carefully, so it discusses the speculation. We discuss urban legends, and discuss them as such. We discuss disproven scientific hypotheses, and discuss them a such. We certainly discuss yet unproven scientific hypotheses, even unlikely ones if the have sufficient sourcing. I don''t see why politics is different.  DGG (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying the following is encyclopedic content: Eventually someone is going to fill the Illinois senate seat. That person may (and in fact is likely to) be a member of the Illinois congressional delegation. That persons seat will also  likely need to be filled.  These possibilities are described herein.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two main problems with this article. The first is that it is practically all speculation. We can write things as they happen, we don’t have to spell things out that may not happen. The second is that one page per special election would suffice. When a special election is called, we’ll make a page for it. As of now, no special elections are planned. – Zntrip 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of comments. The only seat with a special election with any certainty is the 5th District. All the rest is speculation for now, particularly because the Illinois legislature has neither scheduled a special election for Barack Obama's Senate seat nor is there any indication that anyone is going to be appointed anytime soon. My proposal is as follows:
 * Keep discussion of District 5 special election
 * If anyone from the current congressional delegation is formally designated and appointed to the Senate seat, add that district to the list. Any discussion of potential Senate nominees until then is more appropriate in that individual's own article.
 * If, and only if, the Illinois legislature actually schedules a special election to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, I suppose a section could be drafted that passes WP:CRYSTAL, because then we would have formal candidates for election, and discussion of potential vacancies would be more appropriate.
 * I think you are mixed up on what is what. A Senatorial special election (which is not going to happen with two democratic Illinois General Assembly chambers) is another issue.  This page is about house seats. If one of these persons is nomninated by the Governor his/her seat will have a special election.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not married to a particular proposal, but I do agree with Markles that the article needs to be purged of idle speculation.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 23:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Idle speculation"!!!???!!!??? This is a pretty serious issue with very serious political maneuverings.  Political pundits are well aware of who is in contention and this article puts that forth in a reasonable way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is OUR idle speculation, it should be removed; if it is the speculation published in notable sources, there should be an article about it,. That's the basic principle of notability and encyclopedic inclusion, and what's meant by no original research. DGG (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. That is what I am saying above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, User:69.236.189.28 is not me. I didn't do it! —Markles 18:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I undid it. I should add I am glad that it was not done before the main page run.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:69.236.189.28 was me. I probably should have logged in first.  And I probably should have checked the Talk Page before being so bold.  Sorry.
 * That said... my deletion was based on WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is not a political blog for analysis of all the ins and outs of what could happen IF something else happened.  That is not what encyclopedias do.  --Richard (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG wrote "if it is the speculation published in notable sources, there should be an article about it". As reasonable as it sounds, I disagree with this principle.

Should Wikipedia have articles on every "notable" speculation by pundits? Should we have articles about potential Presidential candidates mentioned by pundits before those people even create an exploratory committee? Every set of potential Papal candidates prior to the death of the current Pope? How about candidates for Prime Minister of a country (e.g. Great Britain)? Or candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations? Candidates for Commissioner of Major League Baseball? The list goes on and on. It's bad enough to go into this kind of documentation of speculative punditry when there is a definite election or selection process underway. For an election that may never be held? Pleeez. It must go. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Richard (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Value of this page
This page should exist and the speculation about who might take the senate seat should be somewhere on Wikipedia. The latter should not be here, though. It is appropriate at the individuals' pages, United States Senate elections, 2010, and any page dealing with the Blago-drama. In the meantime, speculating about who might take the seats of people who might take the senate seat is a step too far. As a result, the only valuable content regards the 5th District seat, which already has its own article. Since that is the only special election we "know" is going to happen, this should be a redirect to that page until there is a second one to include here. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A note on the deletion discussion: Tony got one thing backward. We don't merge the articles if it turns out there is only one special election. We only set up an umbrella article like this one if there is more than one. Also, the odds being quoted are way off. There is a very good chance that the person replacing Obama will be one of four of the constitutional officers (Lisa Madigan, Pat Quinn, Dan Hynes, Alexi Giannoulias) or an elder statesman sort. The odds of it being a member of the House are, at best, not much better than 50-50 at this point. Moreover, there is a virtually zero percent chance of one of them joining the administration at this point. Obviously that was written around a week ago and was probably based on the false belief that Ray LaHood was going to be a member of the 111 Congress (he didn't run for re-election). In any event, whatever the odds were a week ago, they are essentially zero now.


 * Media speculation about who might be interested in running in elections most of which will not happen is not encyclopedic. Possible successors for Jesse Jackson, Jr., for example, will only become relevant if he is appointed or wins a special primary (if the General Assembly ends up going that way). -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

editprotected This page should be restored, if not to a redirect, than to Markles's version from just before my last edit to the page. The information regarding the possible appointment of certain Congressmen is given undue weight given the relative probability any of them will be named. The discussions of who might run in those districts is so far beyond the bounds of wp:crystal as to be laughable.

The addition of full protection to this page is a bit much given the relatively few edits anyway. I should note that the result of the AfD was not a pure keep. It was no consensus to delete and merge proposals to be handled later. That is all I have been doing. I created the redirect. Markles reverted me based on a narrow interpretation of the closing of the AfD. I reverted and explained. Moreover, I explained my reasoning here. There is no reason for article to have been full protected and for Tony to have left a blanking warning at my talk page. The latter, especially, smacks of wp:own. -Rrius (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially, what you are saying is that the result of the WP:AFD was keep, but you want to edit the page as if the result was merge and redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what I was doing was paraphrasing the editor who closed the AfD. Now I will quote instead, "The result was keep. Or at any rate no consensus to delete. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article talk page."


 * Moreover, the AfD is completely irrelevant to the other edits that were wiped out. The speculation on multiple potential vacancies when only one might occur is silly. It should be a tip off that undue efforts are going into the one potential vacancy when it dwarfs discussion of the one actual vacancy.
 * I am trying to find WP:SILLY. Can you make some sense?  It seems to be serious news according to multiple WP:RS.  I don't see any jokes in any of the articles.  Since when is multiple RS a tip off of anything other than a notable subject in need of summary by our project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, all the information on the Jackson seat should really go because there is almost no chance he will be appointed or elected to the seat. If the stated justification for keeping the speculative information is one editor's perception of a 70% chance a representative would be appointed, the nearly zero chance Jackson will be appointed should be taken into account.
 * Show me your source that Jackson is no longer in the running.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, I would also have to question whether there is any longer a substantial chance that any of Melissa Bean, Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky, or Luis Gutierrez will be appointed. Bean has barely been mentioned, and the others are to varying degrees tainted by the selection process. Dawn Clark Netsch, Alan Dixon, and Roland Burris each have better odds than Davis and Gutierrez at this point. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add your sources for the new candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. personally, I don't think I would choose Bean simply because her district is too Republican. In the current environment I would think the Dems might lose the seat if they nominate her.  However, my opinion is OR just as yours is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult to follow the discussion when you break up someone's contribution with several responses, so I am not going to bother trying to continue along your format.


 * Your paragraph including "wp:silly" is incomprehensible. The best response I can give is that speculation appearing in reputable sources is still speculation. It is absurd to go into detail about who might run in each of the districts when at most one could become vacant due to the senate seat.


 * Jackson has been tainted by the scandal. I happen to think the guy is probably innocent of any wrongdoing, but no one is going to appoint or elect him to the seat. In the event of a special election, he would have found it nearly impossible to win as "Jesse Jackson" is not a popular name downstate. That can be found in news accounts from early in the process discussing his ability to hold the seat in 2010.


 * The candidates I named aren't relevant to this article because they are not going to create or run in any House special elections. Since I am not attempting to get them included here, the OR factor is not relevant. The opinion that it is more likely than not that a congressman will be appointed is pure speculation and has driven the speculation in the article text. It is out of hand. There is no reason why the text of the speculation should be several times larger than the text devoted to the actual vacancy. If it is absolutely necessary to mention the senate seat, it could be done in a few sentences. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is legitimate discussion about the continuing viability of Jesse Jr. Thanks for advancing that knowledge.  I have to add some of it to Jesse Jackson, Jr.  If am synthesizing it correctly, the long of the short of it is that at first there were some who felt the scandal tainted his eligibility, but since the first news some additional things have come out that may obfuscate those arguments.  Watch forthcomiong changes at JJJ' bio page to make sure I get it right.  He continues to be a viable candidate after the most recent news.  In addition, my OR would add that because his district votes over 80% democrat, he would be a good person to choose because a democrat would likely win the special election to replace him.


 * Keep in mind, what WP needs is people who will say WP:RS1 said x and RS2 said Y. What WP does not need is blatant NPOV contributions like "No one is going to appoint or vote for JJJ".  He is my congressman and I am quite sure he still has a lot of support for higher office.


 * Finally, "The opinion that it is more likely than not that a congressman will be appointed is pure speculation" needs to be evaluated. Keep in mind that if you or I say X is likely to happen it is OR and speculation.  However, if I say RS1 and RS2 say that x may happen it is encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that the article should say Triple-J will never be the senator. I was countering the assertion to the contrary. I do not think this article should make more than passing mention to the senate seat, so please stop misinterpreting what I am saying. My desire would be for this to either be a redirect or to make a vague reference of one to three sentences about the senate seat. As an aside, the opinion press, pols, and chatterers almost unanimously say he is too toxic to appoint. I actually like the guy a lot, and he would be in my top three if I were the governor (along with Quinn and Madigan). That said, the political climate at this moment would be disastrous for him in statewide politics, and he would be dogged with Blago-stink if took the appointment (even from Quinn). He needs time to rebuild. Again, this is an aside and not a direct comment on the article as I am no longer going to bother with trying to fix this article (see below). -Rrius (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation, still
Is there anyone other than User:TonyTheTiger who thinks any discussion of elections other than to the 5th district is excessively speculative? Isn't that violative of WP:Crystal? —Markles 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick look at WP:CRYSTAL section 1 says essentially that the difference between allowable and not allowable are two dimensions 1. the event is notable and almost certain to take place and 2. Events that nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. In this case on the one hand a short term horizon special election has verifiable facts. Namely, we can describe the outgoing rep, recent history, and the voting makeup of the district.  On the other hand, although jointly the named races are likely to result in one future special election, separately, only one will occur, if any. Thus, the policy is inconclusive in this regard.
 * If I am looking at the wrong part of the policy let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dimension 1: The elections in any other district (other than the 5th) are not "almost certain" as you write. In fact, they are barely plausible. In fact, the Senate seat has not been filled.  There is no (0% - none-at-all) knowledge or reliable speculation as to who might fill that seat.  If it's filled, it could only be by one person, so all this speculation about subsequent special elections is completely (100%) speculation. Thus, violative of WP:Crystal, even as you outline it.  Articles on elections have been reverted for this same principal.  I've outlined that elsewhere in this talk page.  Other than User:TonyTheTiger, who disagrees with this idea?—Markles 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other than TonyTheTiger method is not standard WP policy for a couple of reasons. 1. I am not an IP to be ignored. 2. Silence does not connote consent.
 * WRT your argument. First off, Illinois will eventually replace Obama with a second senator.  All the contested information is from a WP:RS.  How about this.  I AGREE THAT YOU CAN REMOVE ALL CONTESTED MATERIAL THAT IS UNSOURCED BY A WP:RS  If you believe your statement "There is no (0% - none-at-all) knowledge or reliable speculation as to who might fill that seat." This agreement should be all that you need to achieve nirvana or at least to remove a bunch of material without fear of me reverting it.  Will you agree to leave all sourced information about "discussion and arguments about the prospect[ive candidates]", which are allowable by WP:CRYSTAL.  How about such an agreement.  I will consent to my bolded statement if you agree to leave all sourced information about "discussion and arguments about the prospect[ive candidates]".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncle
For three reasons, I am giving in, and I advise Markles to do so as well. Not because the article is fine, but because it is not worth the time or effort. This article does speculate about candidate for special elections we are speculating could happen based on speculation about how the senate seat issue will be resolved. The complete lack of clarity on the situation should caution everyone against in depth discussions of the various shades of speculation in article.

That said, the speculation will not last. If someone other than a congressman, all the information will surely be deleted. If one of them is appointed, speculation on the others will be dropped. While there is now clarity on how long it will take to get some determination on the senate seat, it will probably happen within the next several months. The speculation is too much and is probably a result of Tony's overzealous, yet admirable, commitment to covering this topic. In the end, the bulk of the text will not stand the test of time, so I'm not going to work hard to accomplish what will happen of its own accord in due course.

Anyone who, despite the template and the obviously speculative tone, takes the information as fact is too stupid for our sympathy. Putting any more effort into protecting them, especially given the short-term nature of the edits (as set out above) and the low importance of the article, is just not worth it.

The final consideration is the aforementioned low profile of this article. It simply will not be read enough to justify banging my head against a wall for two weeks or whatever trying to fix it.

I'm going to unwatch this article and ignore its existence until there is some special election to deal with other than the Emanuel vacancy. -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad everyone seems to agree to stop arguing. I agree the majority of the text will be erased in time.  Keep in mind the remote possibility that some of the current slate of cabinet nominees do not get approved and that he may replace them with current members of the Illinois delegation.  This may only be a 5 or 10% event, but it is not a trivial possibility.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If a 5-10% chance isn't "trivial," what is? But this is not worth pursuing.  If, by this time next year, there has still been only one election among the Illinois congressional districts (the 5th), then can we modify this article?—Markles 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add that our "giving up" does not mean that "everyone seems to agree to stop arguing." It means that we give up. "Compromise" here means that we agree with you.  I will stop watching this article, too.  In time, it will evolve, as all articles do, and I'll come back and have another (fresher) look at it.  But that doesn't change the fact that this article, as currently written, violates WP:Crystal.  I don't actually like that policy, but I didn't make it and I am not an enforcer.  I beleive that other editors will come along and agree on this point, too.  And my speculation is well-founded.  Cheers.—Markles 15:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Obstinacy wins?
The consensus is running at least 3 to 1 in favor of deleting material and we are letting Tony the Tiger have his way because he stands in the way of a unanimous consensus? Shame! --Richard (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I felt rather battered by the process, and had no desire to continue. I felt myself getting too emotionally involved, so I chose to back off. Please respect that. -Rrius (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rrius, I respect your decision. We're all volunteers and need to back off when involvement is detrimental to our health.  However, I do not respect the result of letting this speculative punditry remain in Wikipedia.  It sets a very bad precedent.  --Richard (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris nomination
Irrespective of the ongoing pay-to-play scandal involving Blagojevich, he did nominate Burris to replace Obama and not someone from the current U.S. House delegation. Regardless of whether the Illinois Secretary of State refuses to certify the Burris appointment (likely) or the U.S. Senate refuses to seat Burris (also likely), Blagojevich has made his decision. Until he is removed from office, resigns, or is stripped of appointment power by the Legislature, it is his decision and his alone to make, and he doesn't appear incline to change his mind. Is this sufficient enough now to remove speculation on potential Senate candidates from the current House delegation from this article? I'm asking here out of courtesy to the other editors rather than making the change out right.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The speculation can always be added back if something happens to the appointment. -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger
In light of the Burris nomination and the Illinois legislature's not allowing for a Senate Special election, I've merged this article into the 5th district article. It became redundant. This article may be recreated (or restored) if/when other district seats become available.—Markles 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)