Talk:2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts

Untitled

Please do not remove losers or their data from this article.—Markles 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Election date range

Mass law sets the date range for special elections for senators at 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs. Kennedy died on August 25, so there are seven days left in August 2009. There are 122 days among the last four months of the year for a total of 129. To get to 145, we need 16 more days, January 16. Of course January 31 is 15 days after that. Since the article originally said Jan. 17 to Feb. 1, I ask: how is my count wrong? -Rrius (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because his "official" date of death is 26th August... 87.194.177.211 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to what source? -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have seen has pointed to August 25th. That said, the January 17th-February 1st date would be correct. From August 25th, there are six days remaining in August (26-31; you do not count August 25th), +30 for September, +31 for October, +30 for November, +31 for December makes 128 days for 2009. Add the 17 days needed to get to 145, that makes January 17th. Fifteen days after that is February 1st. Sahasrahla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, six days, not seven. That makes a whole lot more sense than the "official date" thing given that not one news story says that. -Rrius (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ballot access and qualifications

I have pared down the "Ballot access" section, but I don't think it or the "Qualifications" section really need to be in the article. The ballot access section gives undue weight to the criterion for getting on the ballot. We already know from the "Election dates" section that there will be a primary, and there is little point in discussing how long a person must be registered as a party member before the filing deadline. The "Qualification" section just seems out of place unless an allegation comes up that one candidate or other doesn't meet the qualifications. -Rrius (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a significant fact that 10,000 certified signatures, both for enrolled and unenrolled candidates, and these must be filed in a timely manner, and this should be re-instated in the article. The party member qualification can be a surprising hurdle, and is worth making visible because it is part of the U.S. civics process.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with that portion is that it did not reflect the source. Your passage said that you need 10,000 signatures to be placed on the general election ballot, but that is not what it says. The source says that you need to meet the actual qualifications, be a registered voter, and get 10,000 signatures to be candidate. Through WP:Synth you can arrive at the conclusion that primary candidates need 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and independents need 10,000 to get on the general election ballot, but such synthesis is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moreover, the 10,000 signature requirement is not terribly important on its own. As part of a discussion that the signature requirement is so low that everyone and his uncle is running or so high that only top-tier candidates are running, it might be useful. On it's own, it doesn't answer the question, "so what?". -Rrius (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary the Secretary of the Commonwealth's advisory to candidates does say that. It says that you cannot become a Senator unless you provide 10,000 certified signatures. I quote excerpts below. If you're not on the ballot, you can't become a Senator. Consider your mis-reading of the advisory an indicator that the ballot requirement belongs in the article. Under your proposed petty anti-synthesis regime, an editor cannot say 10 plus 13 is 23 because she cannot find a citation for that exact phrasing of an arithmetical forumla.

"For Unenrolled candidates:

"Non-party candidates must also circulate nomination papers. The papers will place a candidate’s name on the general election ballot, bypassing the primary. A candidate must file an enrollment certificate (certificate of voter registration) to prove he or she is a registered voter and has not been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days preceding the deadline for filing nomination papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. This certificate is printed on every nomination paper. At least one of these certificates must be signed by at least three members of the board of registrars or election commission and filed no later than the last day for filing nomination papers with the Secretary.

"For Enrolled candidates:

"Primary nomination papers may be signed by registered voters in the district who are:

"Enrolled in the same party as the candidate; OR
Not enrolled in any party; OR
Enrolled in a political designation.
The signatures of a voter enrolled in a different political party will be disallowed.
The candidate nominated at the primary will be the party’s candidate in the general election.

The "so what" is that this aspect of entry onto the ballot is a varying fact for the several United States, and absolutely essential. This aspect of ballot appearance is fundamental to how anyone appears on the ballot. Some states easy (Mass.) Some states, obfuscatingly byzantine and intentionally difficult (New York). Here's the cite to the statute. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Mass. General Laws. Chapter 53: Section 6. Nomination papers; contents; number of signatures; unenrolled candidates http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/53-6.htm

Nominations of candidates for any offices to be filled at a state election may be made by nomination papers, stating the facts required by section eight and signed in the aggregate by not less than the following number of voters: for governor and lieutenant governor, attorney general, United States senator, and presidential electors, ten thousand;...

First of all, the original text linked the 10,000-signature requirement to the general election ballot. That is not what the source says. It also doesn't exactly say that party candidates need 10,000 signatures for the primary and non-party candidates need 10,000 for the general election ballot.

As for the "so what" question, if the answer is that Massachusetts is easy compared to states like New York, the text you have does not make that point. Only a fraction of a fraction of people with a high interest in politics have any clue about the signature requirements of various jurisdictions. Saying that Massachusetts requires 10,000 signatures tells the reader nothing. Further, going into the distinction between states like Massachusetts and New York is inappropriate for this article as it gives a tangential issue undue weight. It would be more appropriate for an article like Elections in Massachusetts. If, after the ballot is set, there are a lot of candidates, it might be appropriate to say something like, "Forty candidates will appear on the ballot due to Massachusetts's relatively low 10,000-signature requirement for ballot access." Failing that, it is hard to see why it should be included. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just like that being 30 years old is nothing to the reader I suppose? It cannot be gotten around, there must be nomination papers, and it is a requirement to become a Senator in this state. What is so reprehensible about stating that fact? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No one said it is reprehensible, it is just too much information. It is far less silly, though, than the 10,000-signature requirement or even the 90-day affiliation requirement for primary candidates. You have still not explained how the 10,000 bit is important to this article, so I am removing it. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys must be trying to prove the adage that there's no matter too small to have an edit dispute over. Well, I shouldn't mock, I've found myself in a few of these as well ... I'd suggest a brief description of the ballot access requirements is in order, then everyone moves on to something more momentous ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, that was helpful... -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Might Be 2009

The Massachusetts General Court will be considering changes to the law: although the Republicans would prefer the status quo, they have relatively little clout in a state with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. One possibility would be to prepone the special election, possibly moving the election up to 2009. If that happens, we would have to change the name of this article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen F Lynch

As of 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Stephen Lynch is NOT an official candidate for the seat. He has simply pulled nomination papers. Unless there is objection, I will be returning his name to Potential Candidates. Alex (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Section organization and order, also campaign narrative section

Proposals invited reorganizaing sections.
Should a campaign narrative section go underneath the rather large list of candidates (actual, declined, potential)? A bit hard to find there though.
Since the appointment issue so far, is hypothetical and contingent, and the election process has started and is a fact, the appointment sections could go at bottom. And yet that might all change in a few weeks if a law is passed.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the placement of the Appointment discussion makes sense because any decision on passing a law or or appointing someone would occur before the election. As a result, chronologically, it makes sense to put it near the beginning. It would just seem odd at the end. As for the rest, the only reason I can see is sort of introducing the characters before getting into the narrative. -Rrius (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, below all of the names for the next new section on the campaign and issues. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

References

57 different references and 35 repetitions. This is one well-researched article!—Markles 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of an image gallery

The recent addition of an image gallery seems unnecessary to me. At the moment, we have images of two actual Democratic candidates and one potential one. There are also 10 Democratic non-candidates and 4 Republican non-candidates represented. There are no images of actual Republican candidates and only two of potential candidates. In addition to taking up a lot of space, this seems to give undue weight to people who aren't even running. Were the non-candidates eliminated, half the Democrats and all the Republicans actually running would be left out. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, image galleries are generally pretty redundant, especially when there are candidates for whom no image is available. I'd support removing both from the article. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I took out the potentials and left in only the actual candidates. Nevertheless, I agree that image gallery here is entirely pointless. I suggest eliminating it altogether. Do we need to know, in THIS article, what Martha Coakley looks like?—Markles 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed; galleries are superfluous, and images can be found at the candidate articles. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible appointees

I removed the extensive list of possible appointees. "... as relevant as potential candidates who didn't run"? It's of no significance that "Lois Pines, former State Senator" was considered a potential appointment. Dukakis was frequently mentioned and endorsed by a newspaper, so he should stay, the rest go, it's recentism. Hekerui (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Six years?

Was this election for a full six year term or just a partial term and if so how long? Can't find this info anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.29.253 (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Partial term only - the Senate seat is slated for re-election in 2012, just like had Senator Kennedy lived. 76.193.217.4 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Appointment

I have made a minor modification to remove the part of the sentence that states the purpose behind Kennedy's 2009 letter/request regarding the succession process. While Kennedy stated that his interest is in maintaining representation for Massachusetts, this is a matter that is widely disputed. In fact the article cited as a source starts with the assertion that Kennedy's purpose was to guarantee a vote for health care reform. Packetmonger (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a fact that Kennedy stated an interest in continuity, as such, it should remain in the article. You are invited to bring in citations and text supplementing the fact of Kennedy's statment illustrating the nature of the dispute, and see if your edits survive your article collaborators interest. From Kennedy's letter:
  

"I am writing to you about an issue that concerns me deeply -- the continuity of representation for Massachusetts should a vacancy occur. ... I also believe that is is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."

Kennedy, Edward M. (July 2, 2009. Delivered to recipients August 18, 2009) Letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, President of the Senate Therese Murray, and Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo. (via the Boston Globe. Published August 20, 2009.)

(Belated signature a week+ later: Yellowdesk (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

• Preceding section (from my initial comment to this point) is from an unknown editor. I am inserting this section to make this more clear. Packetmonger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I won't argue that Kennedy stated that- in fact my second sentence above confirms it. I am pointing out that many people dispute the accuracy of the statement made by Kennedy, so it should not be included in an encyclopedia without appropriate context. A reference that the statement is disputed exists in the very article cited by the previous editor- the article clearly states the generally held view that the purpose was to improve the chances of health care reform passing- from the first paragraph- "fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul." If you are concerned with that source there are plenty more out there from other reputable sources- including ones perceived as being friendly to the senator. For example, here is an AP article that includes a former Massachusetts Democratic party chair saying:

"I think he's simply being cautious about the future in order to protect issues he cares deeply about, most importantly health reform," said former Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Philip Johnston. "It's a statement of his commitment to health reform and his support of President Obama."

I am concerned that this subject matter probably should be kept minimal in an article about the election- limited to the elements that relate to the election proper. Clearly, it is relevant that Kennedy asked for the law to be changed, and it is relevant that the law was created in 2004 for the purposes it is generally accepted to have been created for, and it is relevant that the same person that asked for the current proposed change also was significantly responsible for the change in 2004. Is it relevant to include a section saying that Kennedy stated his purpose was to guarantee representation? I wouldn't think so, in part because if such elements were included, it would be necessary to also include the opposing viewpoint and that would be beyond the scope I believe this article should include. If thats the way the consensus goes, then we can include both points of view, and probably should include which was the largely prevailing view and that it is possible that both interpretations could be accurate at the same time. That may well belong in the biography of Kennedy, but I don't think it is appropriate in this article, so I simply have edited to include facts and not political statements. Again, if there is a consensus that this issue is relevant and appropriate to the special election article, I'll be happy to contribute to improve the article that way.

Finally, I'm not sure if it somehow was deleted by someone else, but I can't find your signature. Can you come back and add your signature? Thanks. Packetmonger (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the person above (whoever he is); any debate as to why Kennedy wanted the law changed belongs on his article, if it belongs anywhere; all that should be here is information directly pertinent to the election itself (and the potential for an interim appointment until the election, if the lgeislation for such passes, as it seems likely it will). As has been pointed out, it's not impossible that both reasons are true, but neither reason belongs here in my opinion. 76.25.233.30 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a section above to make it more clear where my comments begin/end and which comments are from the unknown author. Packetmonger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An article on this special election that mentions the interim appointment and the law-change that enabled it should not omit mention of the controversy about the hypocrisy of enacting one set of rules when the Governor is Republican, and another when the Governor is a Democrat. The controversy was part of the relevant history, and the article as it stands appears to implicitly condone this kind of political maneuvering. The Wikipedia article on "Gerrymandering," for instance, mentions that the term has "negative connotations." The legislative shimmy by which mostly the same people deprived Gov. Romney of the power of interim appointment and then restored it for Gov. Patrick, hasn't been immortalized with catchy name, but if it were, this name would have negative connotations. Bo8ob (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that your POV is showing, the charges of hypocrisy are relevant to the appointment law, but not to the special election. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Curt Schilling

I moved Curt Schilling to the independent candidates section because he would have been precluded from running as a Republican because he is a registered independent.--Mhenneberry (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather defer to the source here: The former Boston Red Sox ace ... has ruled out mounting a GOP bid for the coveted seat... ([1]) Makes it pretty clear that he was only ever considering running as a Republican. Perhaps we should list him under both? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. Not capable of being a GOP candidate. Disqualified from participating in the primary as a candidate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yellowdesk is right. Regardless of what the CNN article said, and what Schilling himself may have been considering, he was not registered Republican by the August 5th deadline. As such, his only option was unenrolled. Republican was never on the table. Sahasrahla (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Find me a source that says that and I'll stop moaning, but without one it's synthesis. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[2][3][4] We had one in the article before, I think. Not sure what happened to it. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the above actually say "Curt Schilling has ruled out running as an independent." As far as we're concerned, he hasn't: the source currently in the article only says that he's "ruled out mounting a GOP bid for the coveted seat." The article combines that with the referenced fact that he couldn't have run as a Republican to come to the conclusion that we won't run as an independent, which is unsourced. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that Schilling thought he would be running for the Republican nomination. What's more, it was reported within days of Kennedy's death that Schilling is a registered independent, so during the weeks that went by, he must have known that he would have to run as an independent. What's more, to figure your source is accurate, you are trying to hold sources to WP:SYNTH, which is a guideline dealing with what should and should not be written here, not what should be written in our sources. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. And as we're not saying that in the article, it doesn't need to (for instance, Mitt Romney may never have been considering running, but still publicly declined to, and so gets a mention). I'm not going to make any assumptions regarding what Schilling "must have known", especially as it's irrelevant to the content in question. I'm afraid I don't fully understand your last sentence: the only thing I'm holding to that policy is the unsourced assertion that "Curt Shilling has ruled out running as an independent." – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that his the one source that says he ruled out a GOP bid. It is not clear whether that is what he said or is CNN's gloss on the situation. When it comes right down to it, we don't know what he was considering running as. I suggest we try to find a way of including Schilling without putting him under "Republican" or "Independent". Short of that, it is irrational to believe that he would have continued to consider a Republican bid after it was widely reported that that was impossible within a couple of days after his name first came up. -Rrius (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there actually any way to list him without listing him under a party heading? I think the most sensible compromise, if you're alright with it, would be to list him under both headers. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Coakley insulted Schilling by calling him a New York Yankees fan. Since he pitched for the Boston Red Sox and the Philadelphia Phillies, he took umbrage for that. No, this doesn't need to go in the article, just a small point to smile or groan about. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know the real reason Coakley made that remark? Was it that she had never heard of Curt Schilling, had momentarily under pressure forgotten who he is, or was it more like "I don't thieves and I don't like smokers. You're a smoker, so I'll call you a thief and everything else bad too."Bostoner (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Polling

Why is the polling listed in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't it be listed from earliest to latest? I know other articles do this, but it doesn't make sense here or there. Is there a settled policy in a style guide or in a Wikiproject? —Markles 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any guideline or any compelling reason to go either way. I doubt anyone will complain if you just change it. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I changed it once, and it was eventually changed back. It wasn't reverted immediately, just at some point down the road.—Markles 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I agree with you. It does not appear to be any kind of policy because some elections are top posted and others bottom posted. There is an argument that in especially long lists resulting from 3 to 5 years of polling, such as British, Canadian, and Australian elections, top posting makes sense because the most recent polls are of the most interest. To some extent that is misguided because it is not necessarily true after the election, but in any event that position is irrelevant here because it is such a short election period that it will always be short. As such, the polls should be listed chronologically, which is more intuitive. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue Mass is not an unbiased source; they openly have liberal ideology and anti Brown banners on their website. Can we really trust them to provide accurate facts on the results of the polls they conducted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.84.125 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this poll - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/14/massachusetts-shocker-brown-up-15-in-pajamas-mediacrosstarget-poll/ - be advisable to include? It shares some of the same bias issues as the Blue Mass poll. Moogwrench (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Blue Mass poll as the organization does seem highly biased. In addition, it does not seem to be a mainstream respected polling authority. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of consistency in what standards will be used when deciding which polls to list.

Both the Blue Mass poll (which was done by Research 2000, a reputable pollster) and the Mellman poll were excluded on the basis that sources other than official releases by reputable pollsters, complete with crosstabs for objectivity's sake, weren't up to Wikipedia's standards.

However, the Pajamas Media poll (done by CrossTarget) is repeatedly replaced in the article, despite the only source being an article on a conservative news site. Until something more substantial be can be produced, the poll should remain off of the article, along with the other two.

William S Saturn, you have a history of partisan edit wars; please stay away from articles of substance if you can't control your political biases.--Dr Fell (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I removed the Blue Mass poll was because the link went to an error page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The CrossTarget poll still needs to be verifiable before it can be included. I can't find anything on their website that would suffice. --Dr Fell (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pajamas Media paid for the poll, which was conducted by the nonpartisan CrossTarget Research, and published its results on their website, which I linked to. It's the same general scenario as when a television news station hires an independent firm to conduct a poll which the station will later broadcast. --Pcmn (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is nothing like a television news station; it is a partisan organization. What's more, we have only your word that CrossTarget is nonpartisan. More to the point, we have no information suggesting that they are reputable pollsters. It sounds more like an internal poll for an ally of Brown that they released for self-serving reasons than anything else. Do we list internal polls? -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am steadfast in my opposition to posting internal polls, regardless of which candidate they favor. If someone wishes to post the BlueMassGroup poll, then I have no objections whatsoever. That, although it was conducted for a left-wing political organization (As the CrossTarget poll was conducted for a right-wing one), is not an internal poll to my knowledge. --Pcmn (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel polls commissioned by partisan organizations should be included, why wouldn't you restore the Research 2000/Blue Mass poll yourself? We are, after all, in the business of presenting information objectively, right? -Leo 05:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone think the polls removed by user "202.40.139.171" should be reinstated? 24.147.97.167 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

Endorsements

I think an endorsements section would be a good idea, and I'm kind of working on it. Only problem is, it'll likely be a scarily long list ([5], [6]). Does anyone have any criteria by which the people listed could feasibly be narrowed down, or should I just try to list everybody? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How about none? Endorsements are not all that encyclopedic unless they are something symbolic/widely covered like Kennedy endorsing Obama. After the campaign deadlines are over, the sections about who declined to run should be eliminated as well, they have no point. Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that even this entire election will gain as much coverage as Kennedy's endorsement of Obama; it's all relative. And I think there have been and will continue to be endorsements which receive coverage similar to Kennedy's, relative to the coverage of the election as a whole. Perhaps it'd be best just to put them in a campaign section, if/when there is one? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think endorsements should be handled in prose. If an endorsement isn't notable enough on its own to be mentioned in prose, it shouldn't be mentioned. For instance, since Capuano is a representative, it is notable whether the rest of the delegation endorses him, Coakley or no one. Kerry's endorsement is obviously important if he's made one, and Deval Patrick's probably is, too. The rest should be measured about that. As for people who declined to run, I don't think they should be removed entirely. Perhaps they should be treated as I've said endorsements should, but the decliners were heavily covered and are an important part of the story of this race, both in terms of the "tick tock" and of what this race ended up being (especially when compared to what was expected). -Rrius (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius Gang14 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard the race characterized "by who didn't run" but this means no Kennedy family members or Romney or other from the delegation - not Curt Schilling or Bob Burr. A mention that out of the congressional delegation only one person ran and a citation that this was noted/discussed by newspapers in some form would be enough, right? Hekerui (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't really say whether the Burr thing is notable because, so I have no opinion there, but it is probably worth mentioning Schilling. It was a notable happening and wouldn't really hurt anything to include it. I'm not passionate either way, though. -Rrius (talk)

If we have endorsments, we should add John McCain for Scott Brown, and maybe Curt Schilling as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alby45 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a campaign section

The topic has a history, and progress, not able to be shown in an article that lacks a section called "campaign".
Here's an example, perhaps useful: New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Candidates

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)

Honestly "its a two party system so just 2 can be put up" so basically if the Republicrat candidate has no chance of winning, by said above Margins you will still put that 'un worthy' candidate because they are part of the 2 party system.. Its rather a broken system - But He polled 5% - the one time they actually used his name* and has debated - obtained over 10,000 signatures managed to get on the ballot - that is more then enough to warrant being in the infobox-- SirWence (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown

Is somebody going to get a picture for him?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a wikipedia account and I am very unfamiliar with the system here, but here is a link with a picture of him as a state senator, which I'm pretty sure falls under public domain. http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/spb0.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown Money Bomb

On January 11 Brown raised over $1 M via the Internet. I think that is relevant and material to the article indicating he had amassed broad support during the campaign.

http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Results

I would think Joe Kennedy needs to have his 'party' changed back from Independent to Liberty as that is the Ballot ticket he is running under - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.97.167 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is already a box saying Coakley has won 51 to 48? It's misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb9000 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it.. it was a vandal -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For accuracies sake should we put Joe Kennedy as Liberty or Leave it as Independent ? -SirWence (talk)

Kennedy compromise

United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

January 19, 2010

File:State senator scott p brown.jpg Nominee Scott Brown Martha Coakley Party Republican Democratic   Nominee Joseph L. Kennedy Party Independent

Senator before election Paul Kirk Democratic Elected Senator TBD TBD

After much concern over Joseph L. Kennedy being included in the top infobox, I think a compromise should be agreed upon, in going forward into the election in a few days. Now, along with the issue of polling and support, there is also the concern of the infobox setup with three images. I have created a test infobox, that places the third candidate in a second row, and doesn't compromise the size of the images needing to be decreased greatly; you can see it at the right. Secondly, maybe a threshold should be established for this specific case in including Kennedy; for example, maybe if Kennedy polls higher than 10%, or at least 5% in three or more polls, then he would be added. And though I still oppose him being added at this present time, any thoughts on these two points? Gage (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree there needs to be some type of polling criteria. If there isn't, than anyone who is on the ballot could get inside the infobox. This means that in the 2009 New Jersey election, there would be 12 candidates who would be in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize how utterly lax the qualifications are for that...you keep bringing it up over and over again. When everything from the Qualifications, to the election are both different (and as far as Qualification goes comparatively easy). Different state, different type of election, with this current election in the Massachusetts Commonwealth it is far harder and more expensive to even reach the ballot. As for a polling threshold we don't really have the luxury of them the only named one we have is 5% and the fact that he was included in main debates for said special senate election. With so few polls and only one naming him as even being in the race...I sort of doubt you'll ever get enough to have any sort of a true average. As for the Infobox design, it seems fine to me Gage no issues on that count In fact it looks far better (to me anyways) in appearance for having more than 2 candidates. Though, of course we still have issues on the inclusion. (As you oppose and I support) SirWence (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Sirwence

• I disagree with relegating any candidate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the League of Women Voters, not CQ Politics, and not the NY Times. Kennedy will never poll well, he will never raise much money; he will not take first or even second place; but he WAS nominated and that should be sufficient for inclusion.—Markles 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how this should differ from a presidential election, for example. Several third parties nominated candidates, but none obtained any noteworthy support, or a significant percentage of votes. The last example would probably be Perot in the 1992 election, but at least he pulled in a double digit percentage, unlike Kennedy, in addition to being included in a number of the debates. If Kennedy gets 5% or more in the general election, I think adding him would be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the infobox. Gage (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gage. In addition to that I just wanted to say that maybe we should stop debating this over and over again. The election is next Tuesday. In two weeks from now, this debate we are having may mean nothing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

and I disagree with Gage- Perot unlike Kennedy was rich.. he could run ad's he could compete with quote " the big boys " in 2008 US Massachusetts Senate race -Underwood got over 3% of the total vote (most thought he wouldnt even get over 1%) and still refused to put him up when both he and the Republican had an equal chance of winning (that is to say no chance to win). Also The debate would have never started if he wasnt removed from the infobox - will it be meaningless ? I don't know I think that is up to what meaning you place upon it.SirWence (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

• The election will not settle anything about this question. Wikipedia is a historical encyclopedia, not a political website. Long after this election is ancient history, it will be settled that three people were nominated for this election. Even after one of them wins (probably Coakley or Brown), all the candidates will have to be included for the sake of the historical fact.—Markles 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how a compromise can be reached when We wish him to be in the infobox and you do not.. We all know polls are merely that polls they are hardly a predictor of anything - But that aside we have a 5% and a 3% and a 6% hes not polling at 0.45% I say his debate performances (and the fact that he was included in the debates) and the fact that he is polling when his name is included would say he should be up there- That and the fact that he got through the tedious process of even getting on the ballot in the first place is more than enough to put him in the box - and I agree with Markles. SirWence (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

I've added Kennedy back for now, now that he has begun to be included in national polls, as well as the most recent debate. If he obtains a very small percentage of votes on election day however, I will support removing him once again. Gage (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I must ask what a small Margin is, as we may be once again disagreeing as to what the Margin should be thus maybe a compromise could be reached or one can hope, or we can simply wait until the election- I think it better to settle it sooner; then bickering with endless undo's later, but then again it could also be better to wait, as I always remain.. weary of turn out for special elections. Also on the side note are any of his pictures public domain (IE Usable) I remain rather unsure.SirWence (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

Why does it matter what happens on election day? This is a reference article, not a daily tally. That Kennedy is running is a historical fact even though nobody sincerely believes he's got a likelihood of winning, placing second or even getting much of a blip at the ballot. I don't mind relegating him in the infobox as a reasonable compromise; but for the record (which is sort of what Wikipedia is) there are three candidates running. —Markles 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Kennedy gets 2%, then it is possible for both Brown and Coakley to have less than 50.00% of the vote. His role as a possible spoiler is important, so he should stay in the infobox. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Conservative / Independently Minded Liberal = Inaccurate

These statements are inaccurate: "Brown is running as both a fiscally and socially conservative Republican" vs "Coakley has positioned herself as an independently-minded liberal". Brown supported universal health-care legislation in Massachusetts, has voted for stem-cell research, and is Pro-Choice, and he's described himself as socially moderate and independent-minded (per his commercials). Coakley - Which issue(s) does she differ from the mainstream liberal/Democratic platform? The reference cited, a page from Martha Coakley's web site, does not state she's "independently minded" in anyway. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.150 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned, per Wikipedia's own page for social conservatism and Mr Brown's campaign site, he is a social conservative. He's for parental consent, against late-term abortions, opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to drug decriminalization/legalization. If Mr Brown's stance on lower taxes makes him a fiscal conservative, his stance on the aforementioned makes him a social conservative.--Dr Fell (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record he also opposes the current HCR plan. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

shoving incident

I do not know how to edit the main article to include the following. Approximately one week before the January 19th election a video tape was placed on youtube.com showing an altercation between a Coakley staffer named as Meehan and a report named McCormack outside a Washington DC gathering which Martha Coakley was leaving. The reporter, as well as several other reporters, asked Coakley a question on Terrorism and tried to follow the candidate down the street. The video apparently shows the staffer shoving the reporter into a construction fence, knocking the reporter down, and then blocking the reporter's access when the reporter attempted to follow Coakley down the street. This can be found on youtube.com under the heading "Martha Coakley thug instigates Assault on John McCormack" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beantownboyo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on the incident. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this might be reworked into a paragraph focusing on a number of problems Coakley ran into in the final week of the campaign, including the identification of Curt Schilling as a Yankee icon, and her quip about no religious freedom in the emergency room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph written is badly worded. No where in the source does Coakley "blame" republican stalkers for causing the incident. She just says that she "thinks" republicans were stalking here at the time it happened. Also to note the guy who got shoved was a reporter not a republican stalker. And she says she does not know any of the details of what happened in that article. The paragraph either needs to be taken out or reworded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.245.135 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From the cited article: "Martha Coakley blamed GOP “stalkers” today for triggering tensions outside a Washington, D.C., fund-raiser last night..." – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

not keeping up

While Wikipedia isn;t a wire service, it seems a lot of major developments like endorsements from non-Boston newspapers, various labor unions, TV buys, possible visits on behalf of candidates et al simply aren't being kept up to date and will end up omitted from the article. The closed edits mean we must simply yell about this since we can't fix it ourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest some text and sources here or make and account and the information will be added. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added some information earlier regarding Giuliani and Bill Clinton going to Massachusetts. I'm not sure if going into further detail on endorsements would be necessary. And I have no idea why this article is protected. Thanks for your suggestions. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Brown's endorsement by various police unions, including Cambridge(fallout from the Gates incident?) , is relevant. Maybe boxes are needed for newspaper endorsements and labor/interest group/celebrity endorsments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

name order

Why is Coakley's name suddenly first? Alphabetical order being ignored now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.40.77 (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone alleged that the correct order is to have the party holding the seat currently be first. Attempts to verify this have failed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance of election

I think the article ought to focus better on the "41st seat" national importance of this race, as well as the fact that it appears to be the most furiously contested MA senate election since the 1952 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the lead section, but there should probably be more. Hopefully the article will be unprotected soon. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was protected because most anonymous editors just add information without sources and with such a highly visible page, that is not what we would like to see. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, the addition of unreferenced information is not a reason for protection. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't request it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a really helpful edit. Gage (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up the election lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama at Northeastern

Does anyone have any requests for an image of this? I'll be at Northeastern for another three hours so I can get a pic of the crowds outside where Obama will speak if anyone thinks that would be necessary. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you attend the Obama event? Gage (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no way that the thousands lined up could get inside. I took some pictures of the crowds and have already uploaded them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorsements

Scott Brown has also been endorsed by former New York Governor Rudy Giuliani... I saw it in a campaign video on his website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Former Quarterback Doug Flutie has also endorsed Scott Brown; he campaigned for him at the People's Rally in Worcester along with Curt Schiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.174.168 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies section and POV

I've noticed that the majority of the stuff in there is about Coakley and nothing or very little about Brown. This seems a little bit lopsided as there is more then one candidate here and all of them have done/said stupid things during this race. My suggestion is either A) find stuff on Brown or what I prefer B) remove the section entirely. Brothejr (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

well, the problem is.. that coakley has alot more controversy going on, given her career/judgement choices and position.. and they are all well cited... and most by major papers like the Boston herald..and we can't really just make up controversy for Scott Brown to try to balance it out.. that just isn't there. If you come up with some sourced ones.. feel free to add them.. but removing existing controversy thats sourced...just because we can't dig up the same amount of controversy on Brown.. is hardly a favorable option...but again, If you find some RELIABLY sourced material the points to a Brown controvery...by all means.. add it-Tracer9999 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying to make stuff up, I'm saying read the papers and actually see if anything is out there. I can name at least three things he has said/done that would easily fall into the controversy section. Brothejr (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then source them and add them.. thats my point. Noone is trying to keep out the controversy.. Im just having trouble finding it. The only thing I can come up with is him posing for cosmo semi nude 30 years ago when he was like 20.. hardly seems relevant to me.. the issue with coakley is her position is alot different then a state senator and way more public and under scruitny of the public eye.. A senator for the most part.. votes yes or no. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is A senator is in as much if not more of a public eye as an Attorney General. Here is a couple I found:

• Scott Brown Voted Against Giving Help To 9/11 Recovery Workers [7]
• BMG Exclusive: Scott Brown thought maybe Obama was born out of wedlock [8]

However, I'm more of the opinion of removing the entire section and leaving it be. Controversy sections tend to be honey pots for all sorts of claims. Brothejr (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ok.. see thats a start. Now find a ref thats not a blog, and not a youtube video (that is a whole 15 seconds of a whole interview). "blue mass" group pretty much explains there POV.. and would not be a valid source. just by the name.. your whorunsgov ref is a more in the direction you want to go. Im thinking boston herald , boston globe, any other newspaper... -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually per WP:RS both of those links are fine. Heck here's another one: "Scott Brown Engaged In Culture Wars As Mass Pol" [9] and another one: "Brown decries conservative group's anti-Coakley ad" [10]. Brothejr (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While there is stuff that Brown has done that is controversial, with the removal of one of the more questionable controversies, I removed the POV tag. There still is a paragraph/line at the bottom of the section that is not supported by the ref provided. Brothejr (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the 2005 issue of Coakley and the child-rape case. Info and sources can be found here: [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.116.140 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be removed. "Balancing" political activism with "equal and opposite" political activism is not the solution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. While several of Coakley's statements are verifiable facts, I question their relevance to the election itself. It seems to me that they are included to persuade, rather than inform. 75.66.101.77 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To say that the controversies section should be removed is outrages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and suppose to present all of the facts. Many other election articles have controversies sections. Maybe some liberal editors out there don't won't to expose the controversies. I don't know, but it's insane to say the section should be removed.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy section should not be removed. Coakley has been a higher profile politician and has been prone to making gaffes on the campaign trail. Thus there are more articles that refer to her controversies. Boromir123 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it ought to be removed. These kinds of low-level manufactured controversies are par for the course in elections; it's just that in this case, the national media is watching this race pretty closely, so the standard political chaff is getting a lot of attention. And, of course, the section is clearly biased against Coakley, in that it ignores all gaffes and missteps by the Brown campaign. EvanHarper (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The second part of my comment probably does not apply after the introduction of some more coverage of Brown campaign missteps. EvanHarper (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave in the section but we have to exercise some judgment. Some of what EvanHarper rightly describes as low-level controversies are still worth including because they become a notable part of the mutual mudslinging, but that doesn't mean that we should throw in every media frenzy. I think that "Shovegate" should go because it doesn't directly involve either Coakley or Brown and is not intrinsically important. In the hurly-burly of a campaign, somebody getting shoved is about as nonnotable as you can get. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are we including what crooks and liars thinks? I'd rather include TMZ or national inquirer material. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. This "Controversies" section essentially describes the mudslinging back and forth, so we report the facts (the Brown campaign lists its staffers as independent contractors) and we report facts about the opinions (C&L criticizes this). What we have to avoid is going beyond reporting the opinion to adopting it. We couldn't simply assert that Brown is breaking the law and cite that statement to C&L. JamesMLane t c 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that many of the controversies generated during the campaign may have an effect on the election. After all, Coakley is losing to a conservative Republican in one of the most blue states in the country. When people read the article on wikipedia, many will try and figure out why Coakley's popularity fell so much. If Brown has made gaffs, feel free to put it in the section. But it's impossible to balance it out. The fact is that Coakley has made more controversy, which is out of my control, it doesn't mean that the section is biased against her.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Material which is not directly related to the campaign will be removed. J.R. Hercules (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

sourced controversy in her job performance / judgement.. is related to her campaign..removing sourced accurate information is a violation of wikipedia policy.. even if you make a short post on the talk page saying Im gonna do it.. get concensus please.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources have cited the controversy, it should stay. Boromir123 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it should simply stay - And it seems we are heading into a possible ballot controversy SirWence (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

NPOV dispute involving Controversies section

Controversies section is a giant mess of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, among other things. As per Wikipedia rules, template is not to be removed until dispute is settled conclusively. J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

They are accurate and belong. also just so you know J.R. deleting the 3rr warning from your talk page.. doesnt make it go away. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As has been previously discussed, all of the information is sourced and relevant to the election. If you feel that it is biased and too much against Coakley, maybe you should suggest that she not run such a controversial campaign. From what I see, no judgments are passed by wikipedia and everything checks out and has been publicized by the media and in multiple sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that "you should suggest that she not run such a controversial campaign" pretty much confirms that the section is biased. Hard to imagine an editor would so blatantly and carelessly reveal as much as you just did. In any case, it appears, that the dispute won't be resolved for a while. J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just stating the facts. The truth is that she has had far more publicized missteps than Brown. I don't know if you live in Massachusetts, but I do and can confirm it, along with every media publication. What specifically is your problem with the controversy section? In fact there have been compliments on how well it was worded without passing judgment. You cannot just simply slap on a pov template without specific concerns that can be addressed. You cannot just decide that you don't like it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between inaccurated reported 'publicized missteps' and actual facts. Wikipedia is supposed to provide facts, not wild claims by anyone who happens to state your preferred view. If you're going to repeat that sort of thing, then you need to report the actual facts as well. That's why this section is such a disgrace. Flatterworld (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We are simply stating the facts as it is. There is significantly more controversy associated with the Coakley campaign and it has been more widely covered and scrutinized due to her greater time in the public eye. If its sourced properly by neutral sources (i.e. not partisan blogs), it should stay. Boromir123 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"What" should stay? I don't think you understand the point of the dispute. If we do keep a "controversy" section, it still needs to be rewritten and reedited for neutrality, etc. Even as we speak, several other editors are making conflicting changes to the section. J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• JR Hercules seems to be the only editor who wants to get rid of the controversies section. So my question to you is what is it that is biased in section, specifically?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have again removed a statement which was not supported by the reference. I shouldn't have to point out the need to check references, rather than simply assuming they say what you'd like, prefer or wish them to say. It's too late for this election, but I expect we'll have the same partisans around for the rest of the year, trying to subvert the mission of Wikipedia. (Clue: we're supposed to provide more light than heat.) I see the errors I pointed out in the Martha Coakley article, which were removed from that article, were simply copied here. Obviously those involved in editing both articles are well aware of the lies and spin they purposely repeated. Flatterworld (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And now I have restored the section about the treatment of rape victims in hospitals. Brown has stated he will file a lawsuit, so this remains a controversy as to what he said and believes. Flatterworld (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe candidates

Please do not restore irrelevant fringe candidates to this page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not decide to remove things from the page that have been discussed at length already (see above). Consensus has decided to include the third party candidate. If you feel otherwise, start a discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think this is? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an "I think I'm right so I'll remove what I don't like and then discuss it". I don't necessarily believe that he should be in the infobox, but knowing that there was a lengthy discussion, I find removing it inappropriate at this time. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Grk, all candidates on the ballot should be included. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only include the three major candidates. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only three candidates. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only two of which are serious. Libertarians are grossly overrepresented at Wikipedia, but that shouldn't bleed over into election coverage. EvanHarper (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for your opinion on the matter Evan. -SirWence 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All the candidates who were on the ballot should be included in the statewide table of totals. Plus any significant write-ins (if and when available), but not those who won only a few dozen votes. But they don't belong in the summary box at the top of the page (just not enough lateral space even for Kennedy). Kennedy was a significant figure in this race (because of his effect on the debates), and his vote exceeds the two-party margin in one large county. See, for comparison, New York City mayoral election, 2009, which I worked on, on and off. The best way to show their marginality if they're marginal is to show how few votes they won. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's not necessary to include a third candidate who got 1% of the vote, as something like that is...dare I say never seen in other election articles, and shouldn't be here. Swarm^Talk 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the candidate is on the election ballot, s/he belongs in the election coverage. Name one newspaper that didn't include Kennedy's votes. Flatterworld (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just realized how that looks. I was referring to the infobox... I guess I didn't bother say that was what I was talking about. My mistake. Kennedy absolutely needs to be covered in this article -- not in the infobox. I didn't even comprehend the fact that there was a possibility of taking Kennedy out of the article. Don't be ridiculous, Kennedy won over 20,000 votes. Why would a significant third candidate ever be excluded from an article? Swarm^Talk 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, when I opened this thread I was talking about the infobox. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to keep Kennedy in many places, because he's relevant to this race. And while I've almost always argued personally for staying allied with the Democrats in a two-party system like Massachusetts', I'm also partial to giving full treatment to third parties for a number of reasons. Had Kennedy won 3-4% of the vote, or even a lesser percentage that exceeded the winner's margin over the loser, I think there might have been a good argument for keeping him in the top infobox. But now the opinion polling and speculation is done, and the real returns are in, I just don't think 1% is enough to continue cluttering up that top box in this way. These boxes are rather too big to begin with, and a third picture is just too much. Perhaps there's a way of just indicating his 1% somewhere else in the same box. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any consensus for keeping Kennedy's pic in top infobox?

Let's settle this. No matter how we feel about third parties and alternative candidates in general, or how many to list in a tabular statement of results, I think very few editors now that the returns are in, feel that the top information box has space to accommodate Joseph Kennedy's picture comfortably. But, of course, I could well be wrong. Let's see. Enter your comment and reasoning in the appopriate sub-sub-section below, preceded by "#" which will automatically indent and assign a number to your reply. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Include three portraits in top info box

1. . Doc Quintana (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I would prefer he be put in the info box - my reasoning ? A private citizen with no corporate funding , who participated in all the debates and was even included in national commonwealth wide polls- He forced Issues like Fiscal responsibility to 'spoken on' even if he only receives 1% of the vote he still more then earned his place - -SirWence (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Show only Brown's & Coakley's pictures in top info box

1. Only 2 for the reasons outlined above. Restoring the map would be more helpful. This has no bearing on how to treat other candidates in other parts of the article. If we could include Kennedy's totals & percentage somewhere else in the information box, without the picture, I'd favor that. And his picture should certainly show up somewhere in the article. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who have never edited wikipedia before, all of a sudden come in to the election and start debating this issue. This type of conflict has been debated numerous times before in many other election articles. The fact is that in New Jersey there would have been 12 candidates in the infobox, which is insane and chaotic. Only the major candidates who obtain at least 5% of the vote belong in the infobox. That is the way it has always been for presidential, senatorial, gubernatorial, and any other election. In the 2008 presidential election Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Cynthia McKinny are not in the infobox. So why should this election be any different than the others? --Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind either way right now. What you say above is your opinion: "Only the major candidates who obtain at least 5% of the vote belong in the infobox". Says who? The template has no guidelines so it has to be debated for every usage. The best thing to do would be to start a discussion on the template's talk to draft usage guidelines. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Same issue came up in New York City mayoral election, 2009 where the third candidate whose picture kept getting inserted (Reverend Billy of the Green Party) wasn't the most significant in the final returns; it was the Conservative Party candidate who won as many votes as all the other minor candidates combined, and almost prevented Mayor Bloomberg from winning more than 50.0%. But there certainly wasn't room for 8 or 9 portraits. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1. He received only about 1-2% of the vote. Therefore, I do not believe he was successful enough to warrant putting him in the infobox. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Another vote in agreement. Boromir123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Kennedy should not be in the infobox. Not just talking about his picture, he shouldn't be in it at all. Only candidates who receive significant votes should be in the infobox. 1% isn't significant enough. Swarm^Talk 08:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Kennedy's in the body of the article in Polling and United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010#Results, and that's sufficient for a candidate who only received 1% of the vote. The infobox could include 'Other' for the totals of Kennedy and write-in candidates, but it certainly doesn't need his photo. Anyone who wants to know what he looks like can go to Joseph L. Kennedy. Flatterworld (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Other opinions and comments

United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

January 19, 2010 (2010-01-19)

Nominee Scott Brown Martha Coakley Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 1,168,107 1,058,682 Percentage 51.9% 47.1% Nominee Joseph L. Kennedy (Independent) Popular vote 22,237 Percentage 1.0%

County Results

Senator before election Paul Kirk Democratic Elected Senator Scott Brown Republican

United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

January 19, 2010 (2010-01-19)

Nominee Scott Brown Martha Coakley Party Republican Democratic Popular vote 1,168,107 1,058,682 Percentage 51.9% 47.1% Nominee Joseph L. Kennedy (Independent) Total (without all absentee ballots) Popular vote 22,237 2,423,684 Percentage 1.0% 54% (turnout)

File:010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts results map by municipality.svg Results by municipality

U.S. senator before election Paul Kirk (appointed September 2009) Democratic Elected U.S. Senator Scott Brown Republican

Just to see what it would look like, I tried the information box with Kennedy's name and numbers but without his picture. I think the pictures (if available) of Kennedy, Pagliuca, Khazei and Jack E. Robinson should be in a gallery somewhere on the page, just not in the top info box. Technical quirks I don't understand impelled me to let (Independent) float without "Party name" or a "party color", but I don't see that as a significant drawback (after all, Independent isn't a party anyway; there's no Independent party convention, platform or state central committee.)

Enough uncommitted readers might be interested to see how well the third candidate did, and this answers that question rather emphatically. But there's no need to elevate his picture above that of the other also-rans.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would accept this as a compromise -SirWence (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's too confusing, it looks like he's associated with Brown. —Designate (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that to me -SirWence (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why this would confuse people. But more importantly the infoboxes for Massachusetts' gubernatorial races just show the two major candidates, I think it's alright to be consistent and just keep the two in the infobox (people looking to see how many votes Kennedy got can look it up in the results section)> ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the polling continues as it has for the 2010 race I highly doubt you will see just 2, as the independent is polling as of the latest on the 9th 21-25% - And the Senate race is and has always been harder to 'jump into' signatures , money etc. -SirWence (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I had added a total line to the fourth or lower-right quarter (before it was "fixed up" by another editor), which seemed to reduce some of the confusion. See example at right. (If anyone knows how to float one of these infoboxes to the left, please go ahead and do so.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I commend the experimentation, but I do not agree with mentioning Kennedy at all in the infobox. This is no Ross Perot. Kennedy only won 1% of the vote, which in my opinion is a far cry from a solid justification to put him in amongst the two major candidates. I would also not agree with adding the total vote; it's never been done before, as far as I'm aware (it's an interesting addition, don't get me wrong, but there should be broad consensus extending beyond this page about including this as a general rule for election infoboxs). HonouraryMix (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston.com link is flaking out on me

They're reporting town by town results, but the link is flaking out on me. I'll check back later, but I have no issue with those results being on a subpage or separate article. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doc, Try this site: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html Boromir123 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to get onto boston.com for 2 hrs. Fox25 has the town by town results on their website [12]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, i'll get back to it. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel like listing all 350 or so cities and towns is a bit overkill, not to mention a time consuming process. Remember that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (or whatever the wording is). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to list them you don't have to, i'm going to. It's not indiscriminate, it's important to see trends of where the candidates won and lost. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc Quintana: I agree with you, but I find the map of county results far more trend-revealing, concise, and helpful than the 350-line list. Since the map does a far better job of revealing trends than the list, and since the list takes up so much space, I move for the list's removal. --LucasBrown (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be shunted off to a spin-off list, but I think it's important to see (for example) how New Bedford and Worcester voted, when their votes are swallowed up in the counties (which, with the exception of Barnstable and the island counties, have no real independent political identity or powers). Bristol and Plymouth counties voted against Coakley, but several important cities voted for her. Middlesex county split right down the middle (the difference being less than the Kennedy vote), but Cambridge voted 84% for Coakley, so you want to see that. Exactly the same applies to islands of Brown support in Coakley's counties. And you want to see the degree of support, which of course gets flattened out at the county level. Having said all that, I don't recognize half of those 351 towns because I live in Rhode Island, so I can see why it would look like overload. (As for those who want to minimize the Kennedy vote, the best way—rather than repeatedly trying to erase all mention of him here—is show how little support he received in even his best town.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies vs. individual candidates

• By replacing the controversies, we now have the problem of not being able to cover each issue in one place as several issues involved a back-and-forth between the candidates. I don't see this as an improvement. I also don't see thepoint of having the same material in both the candidate articles and here. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move table of municipal election results to separate page

Detailed municipal election results seem very relevant to this topic, but I think readers would be better served with the 352-row table of municipal election results placed on a separate page. A prose summary of the results and reliable sources' analysis would be more appropriate. I propose moving the table currently in 'By municipality' to a new page titled 'List of municipal election results for the United States special election in Massachusetts, 2010'. It may be a mouth-full, but hopefully it will ameliorate the eyesore. What are others' thoughts? Emw (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say if the municipal results are moved, the county results should be moved as well or removed altogether. Given the way that county government is very minimal in most of Massachusetts, municipal results are significantly more relevant. Just my two cents. Sahasrahla (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep the counties (and restore somewhere a description of their location or seat, for those unfamiliar with them) and also show results for, say, the top thirty cities. It's often customary for the Globe and other standard sources to capitalize or emphasize the incorporated cities; does anyone have a handy list to see whether incorporated status equates roughly with importance? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral with regard to moving the county results table to a new page. If it were moved, I'd support moving it to the same page as the municipal results. I disagree with restoring the county seat column to the county results table. I think copying the county-level state map from the infobox and tweaking it a bit would be a much more reader-friendly way to indicate the counties' respective locations. I'm opposed to deleting the complete table of municipal results, but agree to keeping in this article a truncated version of the table somewhat along the lines of Shakescene's suggestion. Though there's often overlap between a municipality's rank in population and its status as a city, I think the 30 (or whatever number is chosen) municipalities should be included based on their rank in population and not their status as a city. Including only cities would skew towards Coakley; including only the top x municipalities by population may do the same. Emw (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Although it can be unwieldy, one way of compensating for big-city bias is to list each county's major cities (if any) and then show a "rest of X county" line, e.g. Fall River, New Bedford, Taunton, Attleboro, Dartmouth, Rest of Bristol County. Worcester and Rest of Hampshire County would be another example. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's vital to keep them one way or another: Massachusetts reports its results by town rather than county, it would be like not mentioning an electoral college map on a presidential election article: even though it's a statewide popular election, regional trends are important to help show the nuances of the election. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Debates

• I find it incredibly disgusting to find that GageSkidmore (21:18, 18 January 2010) deleted all the official video, podcast and audio links to the three debates, which I had tracked down and listed earlier in the Debates section - as I have for various other campaign articles. He called it 'spam'. Really. With all the misquoting going on from those debates, they were (or rather, would have been) useful. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is typical of the blatant partisanship with which this article, and its related candidate articles, have been afflicted. For whatever reason, various Administrators chose to ignore these obvious problems over the past few weeks, which of course encouraged more and more vandalism and partisanship. If you think this sort of thing won't affect Wikipedia's reputation, or affect the attitude of contributors in future, perhaps you should think again. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with people acting in good faith - not a back alley. Anyway, I've re-added the links in the External links section where they will be more obvious. Flatterworld (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Politics. Of course its going to get messy. Some (possibly) overly partisan guy/gal will edit something. Get his side of the story, we dont needd a war of flaming edits. 164.116.47.180 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain further how the removal of a presumably nonpartisan resource is evidence of "blatant partisanship"? It seems to me that you're the one failing to assume good faith. External links in prose are generally frowned upon per WP:ELPOINTS; however, I doubt anyone will take issue with them in an external links section. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hysteria. Links to videos might be ok in an external links section, but it's accepted practice that we don't put links in to videos right in amongst the prose. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out the obvious then. If GageSkidmore had been operating in good faith, working for the mission and goals of Wikipedia, s/he would have moved the links to the External links section, and/or started a discussion on the Talk page. Instead, s/he simply deleted them, labeling them 'spam' in the comments to (presumably) discourage others from reviewing what s/he did. Furthermore, I remind you that links to debate transcripts/videos/audios within that section has been common in the past. Discussing the correct location is one thing, simply deleting them is quite partisan and disgusting. We're here to inform the public, not keep information from them. Your attempt to excuse violating the spirit of Wikipedia is disingenuous at best. Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whereas your continual moaning is disruptive to the purpose of building a decent article. This article has been edited 786 times so far this month; Gage was probably in a hurry and mistook your non-policy-compliant edits for spam. You really need to calm down and stop making unfounded accusations (perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word partisan? because you've yet to explain how you've come to the absurd conclusion that Gage's edit had any partisan motivation). – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Hyteria18. I didn't realize Wikipedians were supposed to rush in, make impulsive edits without checking anything out (yeah, "offical transcript" and University of Massachusetts video" sure does sound like spam, doesn't it?), write a misleading edit summary, and then disappear. I'm not the one who was disruptive. I'm the one who spent a whole lot of time and effort, as I have on many, many political campaign articles, tracking down and including non-partisan, factual material. But feel free to keep on moaning and complaining about those of us who take Wikipedia seriously, as opposed to playing it like some sleazy video game. Flatterworld (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest that I don't value your contributions. I certainly do, and I hope you can forgive me if I didn't show that as well as I could have. I suggest we leave this discussion here. No hard feelings? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rank

Does anyone know the purpose of the "rank" column in the municipal results table? It seems pretty redundant to me. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insert it, but I think it might be to help when sorting (with that little bow-tie icon) by number or percentage of votes for one of the candidates. This, of course, is irrelevant if you're just looking at the alphabetical order of towns. Also—unlike looking at the 14-county table—it's hard without some kind of guide to see how far up or down the range you are. (When I was tinting the winners' numbers, I didn't realize that I'd only done 50 until I saw it on the page.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Map in infobox

I'd like to get editors' opinions on whether the county results map or the municipal results map would be better to include in the infobox. I think the municipal results map -- which indicates not only the winner of the town or city but also the lopsidedness of the vote -- is better in both visual appeal and information content. Municipal results maps like the one currently in the article were featured on the front page of both the New York Times and the Boston Globe websites at the peak of their election results coverage. Given that we have a similar map, I don't see why we wouldn't feature it as prominently. Emw (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Municipalities: I thought a town map would be too detailed and fussy for my small screen, but it actually looks fine and does convey better information than the county map (which could still stay next to the county results in the body of the article.) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the municipalities map is more informative and should be in the infobox. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• I would support municipalities, as that's how we report election results in Mass. Sahasrahla (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• The county map should be used. Period. Gage (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• County map:I believe consistency is more important. Every other statewide election article has county results. It should be the same in every wikipedia page. Older elections won't have municipality results. Not to mention that very few states report their results by town/city. But every state reports the results by county.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No, they don't. Rhode Island doesn't even have a county that's set up to do that, nor, do I think, does Connecticut. I'm sure the Massachusetts results were reported by 351 town clerks, rather than by the moribund county authorities. A county map of results for Rhode Island would be next to useless, and in fact misleading (it would often be a sea of blue with no red islands). As for consistency and comparison, we have very full results and a map in the county section. Now if someone were to suggest using a two-color municipality map for simplicity's sake in the Information Box (rather than the graduated shades of the map in the municipality section), I'd certainly be open to persuasion. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Municipalities. It doesn't matter what other states do. Reporting by municipality is more precise; it's also the way major sources report it ([13]). I don't see any advantage to providing less information. That county map is a little ugly, by the way. Looks like someone applied a "smooth" filter to the vector image. —Designate (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's interested, a very similar debate is taking place at Talk:New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009#Map. Responses would be appreciated. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Munips Looks very good, and it's very informative. HonouraryMix (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Municipalities We have the map - It fits fine and frankly to me it looks better and is more informative - So I say use it. -SirWence (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral action

I don't care that much what other election pages do, or what has been done in the past. We're still discussing whether to use county or municipality maps, with no consensus so far reached, so I object to one or two editors imposing their own view with threats of edit wars. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure makes sense to me to use whichever is the primary form of local government in that state. I'm pretty certain that those who advocate using counties in this election do not live in Massachusetts. At least one previous comment mentioned that county government is very weak in Massachusetts. The truth is that in most of the state county government doesn't exist at all. Many Bay Staters do not even know which county they live in, though everyone knows their city or town.

Also take account of the fact that counties are much larger in Massachusetts than in most states and therefore show far less resolution. In size, counties in most other states are more like towns in Massachusetts.Bostoner (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic quote

Who was it that likened the Martha Coakley campaign with the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic?

The idea being of course that things did not go well for her and comparing it to the sinking of the Titanic or the crash of the Hindenburg just wasn't enough of a disaster all by themselves to describe her campaign. So he combined them together!

I thought that it was not only apt but also darn funny. But I don't know who to credit it with. I heard it on the radio. --69.37.91.1 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith Winfield

The section on Keith Winfield contains some inaccuracies.

"In October 2005, Winfield, then working as a police officer, was accused of raping his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron."

According to the Commonwealth's expert, the rape occurred on October 12 or 13, 2005. Keith Winfield was not accused of the rape, however, until several months later. I know this because, when he first spoke with the police on November 7, 2005, he was not yet named as a suspect. If you cannot site a source that supports the quoted assertion, then it should be deleted.

"A Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Coakley investigated the case and did not take any actions."

I believe that this is supposed to state that the first grand jury did not indict Winfield. If so, reword it in this manner.

"She recommended about ten months after the indictment that Winfield be released, without bail."

Keith Winfield was not, at any point, arrested for this crime until after he was convicted. The quoted sentence makes it sound as if he was in custody for ten months. As it is misleading in this respect, it should be reworded. TXttx4xttXT (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090830035417/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003194284 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003194284
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114110550/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/brown_narrows_money_gap_in_mass_us_senate_race/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/08/brown_narrows_money_gap_in_mass_us_senate_race

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160129023235/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/07/us/AP-US-Kennedy-Successor.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/07/us/AP-US-Kennedy-Successor.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615062713/http://www.wgnradio.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-kennedy-successor-card,0,7531438.story to http://www.wgnradio.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-kennedy-successor-card,0,7531438.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120523084951/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivEDvT9bYPFIxmY4gvlBgeXDHUmwD9CFFQDG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivEDvT9bYPFIxmY4gvlBgeXDHUmwD9CFFQDG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

N All three of these 'archive' links are dead. —ADavidB 12:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091029094036/http://www.marthacoakley.com/ to http://www.marthacoakley.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/07/us/AP-US-Kennedy-Successor.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wgnradio.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-kennedy-successor-card,0,7531438.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivEDvT9bYPFIxmY4gvlBgeXDHUmwD9CFFQDG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

All three archive links for these are 'not found'; I've removed the archive info and re-marked the original links as dead, hoping Cyberbot II doesn't blindly update them again with bad archive links. —ADavidB 02:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160129023235/http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/07/us/AP-US-Kennedy-Successor.html to http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/07/us/AP-US-Kennedy-Successor.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615062713/http://www.wgnradio.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-kennedy-successor-card,0,7531438.story to http://www.wgnradio.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-kennedy-successor-card,0,7531438.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707071222/http://media.969bostontalks.com/Podcasts/1466/010510senatedebatepart1.mp3 to http://media.969bostontalks.com/Podcasts/1466/010510senatedebatepart1.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707071222/http://media.969bostontalks.com/Podcasts/1466/010510senatedebatepart1.mp3 to http://media.969bostontalks.com/Podcasts/1466/010510senatedebatepart1.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)