Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-11/United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

Where is the dispute?
In the election infobox.

Who is involved?

 * Jerzeykydd
 * Grk1011
 * SirWence
 * 75.161.156.118
 * 24.147.97.167
 * Markles
 * GageSkidmore

What is the dispute?
We are debating whether or not the election infobox should have any candidate on the ballot, or only significant candidates.

What would you like to change about this?
We need a consensus.

How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure.

Discussion
There is no mention in this article of the other candidate who appear on the ballot in January: Joe Kennedy from the Libertarian Party. Granted, his chances of winning are *very* slim, however, his name will be on the ballot, and as such, deserves to be mentioned in this article. 64.69.8.165 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned under the section "Independent/third party candidates"--Cube lurker (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't he have HIS picture up there too, then? --67.141.171.94 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of equal coverage, I'd say yes. Sahasrahla (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But doesn't the article say he won't be on the ballot?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that sentence refers to William S. Coleman, another independent candidate who took out nomination papers. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's polling at 1%, and does not merit being included in the infobox. Once the election approaches, he can be included in the results box. Gage (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He should be included in the info box the poll you cite did not even include his name. If we want equalism he should be there he is on the Ballot and even has debated with them.SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence
 * The poll cited gave the option of "someone else," Kennedy is the only other candidate, and received 1%. Gage (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's the same as adding Ralph Nader to the 2008 election article, Kennedy has polled at 1%, and should not be included in the infobox, until his polls increase, or wins a significant amount of votes" I am so glad you think so highly of your own opinion, but I would say.. "some other candidate" is not a name in fact it implies more then one. There isn't .. You base your entire argument on a small sample sized biased* Poll. Forgive me if I think all 3 should be there- You disagree, why again does your lone opinion dictate the entire discussion? SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is based on facts, as opposed to your argument, which is based on absolutely nothing. Gage (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah your opinion is a fact now.. That is interesting. You can't even say how a poll reads its results IE it never even names the Candidate but you imply it does, in fact it even could imply multiple when there isn't.. oh but you're factual. heh right. And were you the one who put him down his ticket as Libertarian? When its Liberty- Either way, Who ever did that was grossly UNinformed. Of course you can say what you like about me or my views.. but.. Your opinions are not facts sorrySirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence
 * Just because Kennedy is the only third party candidate doesn't mean that he should be in the infobox. In the NJ gubernatorial election, Daggett was in the infobox because he qualified for the debates and polled over 5% consistently.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kennedy has debated, however he has not been included in a poll. his name as we can all agree at least on this is not "Some Other Candidate" I challenge using polls like that when there have been so few in the first place with pathetically small sample sizes.  SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So because a candidate isn't important or significant enough to be included in any poll taken by multiple independent polling agencies, that indicates that he's important enough to be added to the top infobox? Gage (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be left up the voters / People being polled to decide Not a private polling company. Nor is it up to you to judge the importance or lack of it, for a candidate - Your polling argument is invalid either you poll and get a real number with his name or you dont tell people "hes not important" or "he doesnt have the % numbers" as both are invalid as an argument until that is done- SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the voters of Massachusetts. Kennedy will not be added until he is included in a poll, obtains a significant amount of support, or receives a significant number of votes on election day. Gage (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor are you the collective, nor is a private polling company. And what is Significant? Forgive me if I dont really trust your ... subjectivity on the matter- greatly.SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You tell me, since you seem to believe Kennedy is significant. Gage (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no good sir.. you tell me.. as your opinion here passes as fact.SirWence (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence   04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could care less, really. Gage (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really don't care.. then why even bother removing him? I think mayhap you care more then you let on but oh well, it doesn't really matter who cares or to what degree they care- SirWence (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys need to stop launching personal attacks. Let's try to compromise and not be obstructionist. I personally believe there should only be two candidates in the infobox unless if there is any other candidate who is reasonably considered as a major candidate. I understand we have to be fair, but we can't just put 10 third party or independent candidates in an infobox, all of whom may get less than 1% of the vote on election day.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kennedy met the threshhold of being nominated. It took the effort of getting signatures, which Kennedy met. That's enough to merit listing in an infobox. —Markles 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are telling me that all 10 independent candidates in the NJ 2009 gubernatorial race should be in the infobox?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * New Jersey is not Massachusetts - This is not a state election for governor and its not an easy task to get on the ballot in either case for independents in This commonwealth. 24.147.97.167 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 SirWence (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kennedy's picture deserves to be in the info box; he polled at 5% a few weeks ago.
 * He only polled 5% in one of six polls. If other polling firms aren't even asking people about Kennedy than he is probably not significant. In New Jersey, Daggett starting getting a lot of support, which urged all of the polling firms to ask about him. But very few are even mentioning Kennedy.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If he is on the ballot I don't see why he should not be included in the infobox. What if in an election there were two candidates and one got 99.5% of the vote? Would we only include the one candidate? When more than two people are added to the infobox it looks weird, but that is the infobox's problem. Perhaps it should have been designed better. In fairness, we should not decide who or who isn't is a "good enough" candidate. They are all officially running and will appear on the ballot. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. But we have a two party system. Only a major candidate should be allowed in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kennedy was very often -- but not always -- mentioned by local media in relation to this past election. We don't have a two party system, we have a de facto two party system, and the peripheralization of anyone outside those two parties is a dangerous trend.  Include. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)