Talk:2010 Hawaii's 1st congressional district special election

Untitled

When will this election take place? David.Kane (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As Abercrombie won't resign until February 28, it's sort of unclear. According to this, the earliest it can be held is May 1, but it could be delayed until September to coincide with the general election primary. I'll put that in the article. (Interestingly, Abercrombie won the seat under similar conditions in 1986, winning the special election while losing the general primary to Mufi Hannemann, who he's now running against in the gubernatorial primary.) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dark horse candidates

I've added the names of various candidates listed by the state Office of Elections as having filed to enter this election, although I'm not familiar with the guidelines (if there are any) regarding how dark horse candidates are treated in election articles. If there are any problems with this, feel free to bring them up here and change the article itself. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Introduction stated "The election will be held on May 22, 2010, and will be handled completely by mail." This is incorrect, as voting machines will also be available for standard walk-in voting for 10 days. Stating that it will be "completely" by mail could confuse people as to their voting options. I deleted the incorrect information, added the correct information, and cited the Hawaii Elections Office as a source. I also moved this information from the introduction to the "Special Election Rules" section where I believe it belongs.Rev.Dr.Browne (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Vinny Browne

Why are we promoting this guy as a major candidate? Looking through recent news stories on this election, I can't find a single mention of him. The consensus is pretty clearly that this is a three-horse race; this article should reflect that. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia promoting Vinny Browne? There is a picture and a mention of his name on the list of candidates. That is all.--TM 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded overly accusatory above. I was referring, of course, to the fact that Mr. Browne is included in the infobox, a space normally reserved for people considered by reliable sources to be "major candidates". – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 01:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can find nothing in the WP:PG that would suggest that only "major candidates" should be mentioned in the infobox. To the contrary, in complying with WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not be determining who is and is not a "major candidate". It is fine to reference media opinion and polls, and state that these suggest one candidate is stronger than another, if that is what they suggest. But any candidate on the ballot can, at least in theory, win the election, and Wikipedia should not favor one over any other. Therefor, no harm is done by listing any candidate on the ballot as a candidate, or by placing their picture in the info box. However, harm is done to the neutrality of the article by determining that any one candidate is not as "worthy" as another candidate. As TM previously stated, there is a picture and a mention of his name, that is all.Cloud183 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there are ten candidates running. {{Infobox election}} allows for a maximum of six candidates. It's neither practical nor technically possible to include every candidate, which makes it necessary to only include (in the infobox) candidates which reliable sources consider to be "major". There is no evidence that Mr. Browne is worthy of this distinction. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, I fully agree with Hysteria that based on several sources Browne is not high profile enough to be included in the infobox. All ten candidates are noteworthy enough to be included in the body, but the infobox should represent the overall "story" of the article. --Travis Thurston+ 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If they all have pictures, we should include them all. I see no use in discriminating based on presumptions. Anyway, someone has taken it upon themselves to remove Browne from the infobox prematurely. I've reverted it, but I am curious who the "we" they referred to is.--TM 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It is technically impossible to include all ten candidates in the infobox. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 02:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not impossible, if other candidates had pictures available they could be easily added.Cloud183 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote, directly from the documentation of {{Infobox election}}: image1: Image of Nominee or Party Leader. The number can be changed up to six to display different Nominees or Leaders at the same time. (Bold text mine). Unless you want to gain consensus for rewriting the code of the infobox, it's impossible. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We could include all of the pictures (or any pictures we can't fit in the infobox) in a picture gallery as well. Either way, Browne's picture should stay.--TM 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise then, how about putting the main three candidates in the infobox, and Mr. Browne's image in the article body under 'candidates'? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is god damn ridiculous. I hate when these new editors come in and try to make or re-write the rules. For the past several years, the rules have been that the major candidates are included in the infobox. We can't have 10 candidates in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to show a small summary of the article. In the United States, two candidates typically get a significant amount (5% or more of the vote). In this election, it's three, which is unusual. Vinny Browne is rarely mentioned in the media and is never polled. He doesn't even have a seperate wikipedia article. The fact that we are even having this discussion is stupid.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Jerzeykydd, I started editing articles 3 years before your account was founded. Secondly, you need to change your tone; it is incredibly disrespectful. Lastly, I apologize that you don't like having a discussion on a Wikipedia article's content. Perhaps you just need to relax?--TM 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5 of the 10 candidates have pictures: Del Castillo also has a picture [1] I think including all available pictures is proper if possible. Removing Browne's picture (or adding Castillo's for that matter) is improper until a clear consensus has emerged here.--TM 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary here: I was working on a principle of silence and consensus. In your last post here prior to that edit, you didn't comment on my suggestion, which I took to mean you didn't oppose it. You've done the same in your post directly above. You refer to "removing Browne's picture" – something I emphatically haven't done – and are kind of vague regarding where in the article you feel these images (of Browne and Castillo) should go. I'd appreciate if you could respond to the above-stated compromise, with the addition that Castillo's image be included alongside Browne's. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I assumed Jerzeykydd was talking about Cloud183, whose user and talk pages are both still red-linked and who has a grand total of 19 edits. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All candidates with images available to Wikipedia should have those images posted in the infobox if possible. Is that clear enough? As towards silence, I had to look back for your comment because you didn't post it at the bottom of the page and I didn't know that you'd replied here. Creating hierarchy of candidates in the infobox should be avoided whenever possible and, in this case, it is easily avoidable. Include all of the images.--TM 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that's your position, but it's not clear why. There are 10 candidates and 6 slots. To put a finer point on the matter, it has never been the case that decisions about who to include boil down to who has a free image available. It has always been about including the important candidates. Ralph Nader is not included at the 2000 and 2004 presidential election articles; John Anderson isn't at the 1980 article. Images are simply irrelevant. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We need to be discriminating in the infobox. It's clear who Case, Djou, and Hanubasa are different from the other seven candidates: each is receiving a significant amount of support in the polling and each is considered a major candidate by the media and the parties. Now, what separates Browne from the other six candidates? Who does and does not have a free image available is not relevant. Major candidates who don't have images are routinely included, and minor candidates with images are routinely excluded. The key is whether the candidate's exclusion would be surprising. For instance, not including Ross Perot at United States presidential election, 1992 would be surprising. If we were in the midst the 2000 presidential election again, whether to include Ralph Nader would be a close case. However, from reading the article and looking at some news coverage, it is hard to see the argument for Browne's inclusion. Related to that is the fact that the infobox, ultimately, should be a summary of the article. While a certain amount of extraneous material is okay, it is not clear how including Browne makes the infobox a better summary; in fact, doing so seems to make it less representative. I'm open to persuasion here, but as things stand, I don't see the case for inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is my position because I am against Wikipeda editors deciding who is an important candidate. In my opinion, prior to an election, we should be providing factually accurate information with as little bias as possible. Deciding that Browne, Castillo or whomever is not a strong candidate is very subjective. Wikipedia has a lot of weight online and, by allowing a couple of editors to decide that such and such a candidate has no chance of winning, we are very likely directly influencing the results of that election. As to the 3RR warning, it is ridiculous. While a discussion is on-going, we should not be editing that part of the article. It is like emptying a category of articles while it is being discussed for renaming.--TM 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are flat-out mistaken in the view that it is Wikipedia editors deciding who is an important candidate. The decision on who goes in the infobox is based on media reporting. If you are unhappy about that reporting, that's too bad. It is, however, that reporting, and not the decision of Wikipedia editors, that you are finding fault with. The two main components in the decision are actual reporting and poll results. Most reporting on the election discusses Case, Djou, and Hanabasa. When they discuss why a Republican has a chance to win, it is explained that Democratic support is divided between two major candidates—not five, or even three. Also, when polling results are reported, they mention the top three candidates, and not the others. As for your argument about whether the candidate should be included pending the discussion, you are simply wrong. In the WP:BRD cycle, you were bold, were reverted, and it was then time to discuss—not for you to unilaterally decide that the material should be included while you attempt to convince us. Also, you have failed utterly to explain where you get your notion that availability of images is at all relevant to infobox inclusion. My experience over the last few years, and that of the other editors here, is that the two things have no connection whatsoever. In fact, your only support to this point is that you think Wikipedia editors are deciding who should be included based on their own preferences. Not only does that show a striking ignorance of how these decisions are made, but it also demonstrates a lack of respect for the editors making the calls.

This discussion has been going on for almost a week, and the only other editor who has agreed with you is an account that has only made edits related to this election, some of them questionable. It is, by this point, clear that consensus is against your edits, and is likely to remain so. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, I ask that you refrain from calling any editor "ignorant". Your nasty tone will get you nowhere. As to the actual issue at hand, as Hysteria noted at the beginning of the discussion (which you, Rrius, jumped into several days after it began), the problem is that there is not enough space in the infobox for the images of all 10 candidates. I don't see this as a problem at all, given that we have free images of 5 of the candidates. If you can point to the policy or consensus that says only "major" candidates should have their images in articles regarding elections in which they are running, I will happily concede your point. If, after the elections, it comes to be that only 3 of the candidates did in fact receive significant popular support, then I have no problem with, at that time, removing any candidate's image who did not receive support. Also, do not simply discount what Cloud183 says simply because they are a new editor. Cloud183 has made several policy-grounded remarks on the topic.--TM 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First, either you didn't read what I said carefully, or you are deliberately misconstruing my words. I said your argument "show[s] a striking ignorance of how these decisions are made". Please take care not to take my words out of context so that you can try to present them as name calling. Saying that my tone was "nasty" is just bizarre. Second, what difference does it make at what point I joined the conversation? Third, yes, the ultimate problem is that there is not unlimited amount of space in an infobox. The reason for that is that it is not intended to include every candidate in every election. Instead, it is meant to contain the major ones. You once again resort to this argument that if we have free images, we should include them. However, that ignores the fact that we should have major-party candidates in the infobox regardless of whether there is a free image available: election infoboxes are not trumped-up galleries. Fifth, to my knowledge, there is no explicit guideline saying "election infoboxes should only have the major candidates". However, infoboxes are, as has been pointed out numerous times now, supposed to provide a summary of the article. See, Help:Infobox. Including candidate information based solely on the availability of free images is completely arbitrary, irrational, and in no way leads to a fair summary. More to the point, I can point to the other election infoboxes deployed across Wikipedia: candidates in the infobox are those who have substantial support or are key to the "story" of the election.

Saying someone showed "striking ignorance" is quite like calling someone "ignorant".

Relatedly, you are suggesting that Wikipedia has some sort of power in guiding elections. Implicit in your argument is that the infobox is part of that power. Fine, let's assume that for the sake of argument. Why Wikipedia wield its awesome power to benefit Browne over the other six candidates who are generally ignored in coverage of the race? Because he uploaded an image of himself? That is ridiculous. Several editors with extensive experience are telling you how election infoboxes are handled; you should at least have enough respect for us not to assume we are lying to you. Sixth, I am not solely discounting Cloud183 because he or she is new. The account appears to be a single-purpose account, having only been used to edit this and related article. What's more, for an editor with a mere 20 edits and less than a month of editing, he or she talks a little too much like an experienced editor. More to the point, Cloud183 is just wrong in his or her interpretation of the situation. The position that Case, Djou, and Hanabasa are the frontrunners is substantiated by a significant amount of evidence from reliable sources.

Finally, I am perfectly happy to continue having this conversation, but I would appreciate your being more polite in the future; specifically, I suggest you not take people's words out of context to present yourself as the victim of a personal attack. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am walking away from this article and discussion. It is pretty clear that "consensus" has been formed by a couple of editors who do not want to include candidates outside of the favorites, despite arguments over neutrality.--TM 02:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Djou Endorsements

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was listed as endorsing Djou using the following link as a reference http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/20100326-romney-rolls-out-endorsements.html however, there is no mention of Djou in this article at all.

"Every Republican in Hawaii's legislature" was listed as endorsing Djou using the following link as a reference http://www.swingstateproject.com/tag/Charles%20Djou however, the link refers to a blog, not a reliable source, and the blog credits Djou himself as the source of this information. In order to list "Every Republican in Hawaii's legislature" as endorsing Djou, a statement by the legislators themselves should be referenced, not an uncorroborated statement by the candidate himself.

Both listings were deleted. If someone finds a reliable source to back up these claims, please feel free to relist the endorsements and site the source.Cloud183 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawaii's 1st congressional district special election, 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/20090224144340/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)