529:: I have undone the change made by user Nevermore27 because their argument was that Bill Gelineau was not polling at 5% or greater. In Michigan "major party" candidates are not arbitrary based on polling numbers. In Michigan you are considered a major party when Michigan law (MCL code) tells you that you have to have a primary rather than a caucus. Minor party's caucus and major party's primary. Primary's are tax payer funded to a degree, state organized and not everyone qualifies. Major party's should be in the info box since other two major party candidates are represented. The link to the PDF below is also referenced elsewhere on the references page that I didn't post but I posted it here for your convenience. As a likely non-Michigan resident I don't think you're aware that Michigan has three major party's as does New Mexico. There might be one or two others with this unique distinction this election cycle. You can not disqualify a major party candidate from the info box based on arbitrary opinion. I would also like to add when you look at each candidate, republican, democrat and the libertarian they all had to do the exact same things mechanically, 15,000 signatures, debate other candidates, campaign to win their primary, etc. Mechanically they all did the exact same things but the Green, Tax Payer, Constitution, etc party's (the minor party's) didn't have to do any of it. The infobox as noted elsewhere in the talk section (I"m new here sorry) also talks about the difference between major and minor party's and to not think of them in terms of "third party's". States don't classify party's as first, second, third, fourth, etc. State classifications are either major or minor regardless of polling data.
660:@Nevermore27: I don't mind being in an edit war. You're the only one who's "fighting". You're suggesting treating all major party candidates unequally and that isn't fair. Knowledge as noted by other users doesn't have a hard rule about 5% in the polls. You seemingly only want to use 5% because that has been some kind of loose standard over a decade. You don't speak to the major party status I asked about and on those grounds Bill Gelineau should stay as should ALL major party candidates. The framing of your narrative and that of Knowledge about polling numbers is a biased measure since polls can be manipulated. Why would anyone want to base who shows up in the info box on something that can be manipulated? To me this makes no sense and state laws, election laws, how states categorize party's is a better measure. Major vs Minor party status and not polling data should be what determines info box listing regardless of how it has been in the past decade. Whomever created those loose guidelines didn't think about how polls can be manipulated. If we took a poll on this page I think Bill Gelineau would get 75% in our poll.
582:
different. Where does wiki policy state that only democratic and republican candidates get info box rights? It doesn't. If anyone is listing a major party candidate then all major party candidates should be listed. What is your argument for excluding Bill
Gelineau on major party status grounds? Please speak to this. Party's in every state in the US are classified in two ways, major and minor. Bill Schuette, Gretchen Whitmer and Bill Gelineau are all classified as major party candidates and not minor party candidates and on those grounds you can not include only two of the three and arbitrarily exclude the other. That is political bias.
668:) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Nevermore27: Apparently I've been whacked by the wiki whacker bot. I've appealed to the great and mighty whacker bot in wiki world. This entire argument of 5% is absurd and I've pleaded my case. I think you're wrong to base info box listing on manipulative data controlled by corporations and party's but should rather base info box listing on how states categorize. Major or minor. Major party's get info box listing and minor one's don't. This is in my view 100% unfair. I'm sure you disagree. I'd love to hear why you think it should be based on poll numbers of 5%. Why not bump it to 25%?
775:
candidates should be in a minor party info box. This is how the states classify and categorize laws on how those party's behave according to their candidate selection process. You either caucus (minor party) or you primary (major party). In
Michigan for example for the first time in 50 years the libertarian party had to primary and where on the primary ballot making them a major party since they benefited from tax payer dollars paying for them to be on the ballot, paying for a primary at public polling locations, sending information to county secretary's, etc. Forgot to sign my comments here:
163:
142:
82:
64:
173:
33:
637:
under the state's election laws. In fact, I added many of them myself, you can check that. I have no bias for the two major national parties or against the
Libertarians, but there has to be a threshold. If you want to change that via consensus, I have no problem with it. But until that happens, this is the last stable version, and it will remain that way until a new consensus is reached.
636:
one poll. Or, if the party got at least 5% of the vote in the last election of the same type. Gelineau has not, and the
Libertarian Party did not. Elections pages that include the Libertarian Party's candidate are only there because one of these criteria were met, not because they are a "major party"
413:
Meeting the 5% Threshold is precisely why
Libertarians are now treated as major parties under current election law. That being that 2016 top of ticket candidate Gary Johnson got 5% of the votes cast for Secretary of state in 2014. So it seems like it would be appropriate to include their nominee for
356:
What's the wiki standards for a candidate to be included in an infobox on a page like this? For instance, the
Liberatrian Party qualified for "major" party status this year, which means they got to have a state-wide primary instead of a convention like the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you
581:
As I said, Bill
Gelineau is a major party candidate equal to the other two major party candidates and as such you can't remove him from the info box. In fact, other wiki pages should also include libertarians that have reached this status. What makes you wrong is you classifying him as something
335:
Quite right, though I must add that this particular candidate has received significant coverage from major mainstream media sources. Leaving out candidates is not necessarily bias, and putting
Libertarians at the top would be undo in many cases. This is different. I have inserted a photo. Prepare
296:
I thought this was fairly obvious, but don't add polls that can't be corroborated or verified. It's even debateable to add a poll commissioned by a major paper if they don't include all of the relevant information. So it's certainly not acceptable to add polls that we never made public and that
379:
There are no hard-and-fast rules for how to handle the infobox, but
Knowledge precedent for an infobox pre-election has been to include only candidates of parties who got at least 5% in the previous election, or are polling above 5%. Right now there is some debate going on over whether to change
398:
It really seems weird that state law doesn't play any factor in this. In the case of
Michigan, it changes a whole lot of rules when a minor party becomes a major party or vice versa. It's precisely because of the Libertarian Party's showing in the last general election (2016), that they were
774:
I think instead of "Third Parties" which should be spelled "Third Party's" I think you mean "Minor Party's". There is a distinction between major and minor not third. You're either a major or a minor. I think all major party candidates should be in the major party info box and minor party
275:
The only problem is that Target doesn't seem to have a regularly updated website or anywhere to find their polls, so in this case they don't even mention the undecided and "other" percentages. I wonder if it's worth adding without that basic piece of the poll?
883:
We need to change the site image to something neutral so no candidate shows up in previews. Right now the preview from other pages shows the Democratic candidate alone. This is not right. How about that state seal which is also on this page? Neutral!
562:
As I said above, no state's ballot laws dictate Knowledge policy, or in this case a consensus that has been argued and reaffirmed since 2008 at minimum. Just because I'm "the only one griping" doesn't make me wrong or you right.
448:
Here is the link for clarafication regarding the Secretary of State position on ballot access. This editing war needs to stop, especially by people who have not even completed basic research on Michigan's election laws.
685:
I reviewed the history and this discussion, and Nevermore27 is alone on this. When one editor keeps pushing against the consensus by constantly performing the same reverted edit, it is disruptive editing. Please stop
316:
Three parties selected candidates via primaries on August 7th, but the opening section only shows photos of two of them. All three should be included, both for completeness's sake and in the avoidance of bias.
500:, I do apologize for my last edit summary, I was looking at the section below titled "Third Parties". That said, you intimated that this discussion was evidence of consensus, which is just not true.
1036:
1031:
812:
Unless there is some existing standard at wiki for no endorsement, I don't support this. I don't even know how you'd do it; there's really no such thing as a negative endorsement. --
756:
847:
Someone when they get the time, request that this page be put under temporary protection. This should have been done the last dozen times ago in this editing war. --
619:. If you want to change consensus, then I encourage you to continue making your points. But if you revert me one more time I will submit this to dispute resolution.
107:
89:
69:
297:
some columnist had seen or heard second-hand from some unnamed source. Polling is under enough scrutiny as it is, so please be extra careful about this. --
951:
It is VERY VERY important to make sure the edits match the supporting citations. I prevented an edit war by making sure the citation supports the edit.
1046:
231:
221:
632:
Second: Consensus for elections pages is (and has been for 10 years) to only include candidates in the infobox if they have gotten 5% percent in
1051:
1041:
795:
321:
751:
Candidates beyond the Republican and Democratic parties should be allowed to be displayed in the infobox regardless of political status.
197:
794:
We need a box for no endorsement. For example, governor Rick Snyder is not endorsing a candidate for Michigan governor as shown at
414:
now. There is also the matter of notability. Bill Gelineau has received significant coverage from reliable third party sources.--
256:
428:
There seems to be an edit war building about this. When I reverted one of them I directed the editor to join this discussion.--
380:
that, but that is how it has been done in the past. Party status, according to state law, is not usually a determining factor.
899:
186:
147:
611:
in adding Gelineau. I reverted you because that is not the consensus. Then, the next step is to Discuss. One thing that you
540:
464:
44:
703:
I too support the inclusion of Gelineau in the infobox. I agree Nevermore27 is the only person who is against this.--
265:
357:
do infobox inclusions by the political rules of their respective state, or does wiki have a different standard? --
909:
I don't think there's anything intentional about the page preview picture? I think it's just an automatic thing.
852:
817:
404:
362:
302:
281:
325:
32:
736:
535:
261:
17:
956:
936:
918:
895:
870:
831:
802:
646:
572:
509:
483:
433:
419:
341:
50:
1013:
1009:
994:
990:
887:
848:
813:
714:
691:
452:
400:
374:
358:
298:
277:
1017:
998:
979:
960:
940:
922:
903:
874:
856:
835:
821:
806:
784:
768:
718:
695:
677:
650:
591:
576:
556:
513:
487:
468:
437:
423:
408:
389:
366:
345:
329:
306:
285:
269:
891:
780:
764:
673:
665:
587:
552:
385:
196:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
495:
456:
93:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
708:
616:
257:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/31/poll-whitmer-fieger-lead/104178896/
952:
932:
911:
863:
827:
798:
639:
565:
502:
476:
460:
429:
415:
337:
101:
975:
687:
399:
allowed to hold a state-wide primary alongside the Democrats and Republicans this year. --
178:
776:
760:
669:
661:
608:
598:
583:
548:
526:
381:
81:
63:
1025:
604:
603:
First of all, stop reverting me right now. There is Knowledge policy in place called
162:
141:
970:
Can someone make a new SVG map, whoever made it utterly fucked up the SVG. Thanks.
704:
971:
168:
105:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
989:
There needs to be an endorsement box for whitmer in the democratic primary
826:
Billions of people could go in every "No endorsement" box. This is silly.--
737:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Political_Party_Status_482649_7.pdf
985:
No primary endorsement box for Gretchen Whitmer in the democratic primary
192:
95:
190:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of
26:
474:
Election law does not dictate wikipedia policy or consensus.
1008:
It somehow got deleted when trying to make another one
253:
Here's a link to a new Target Insyghts primary poll.
757:
Talk:United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018
541:
Major party requirements vs minor party requirements
931:This article was semi-protected on November 2.
117:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1037:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
1032:Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
120:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
8:
615:do is just revert again. That is called an
30:
885:
712:
450:
136:
58:
18:Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2018
536:STATE OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL PARTY STATUS
729:
138:
60:
90:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
184:This article is within the scope of
87:This article is within the scope of
49:It is of interest to the following
607:: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were
320:Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com
123:Elections and Referendums articles
25:
1047:Low-importance Michigan articles
171:
161:
140:
80:
62:
31:
226:This article has been rated as
822:11:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
807:02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
424:21:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
346:21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
206:Knowledge:WikiProject Michigan
1:
1052:WikiProject Michigan articles
1042:Start-Class Michigan articles
1004:No more Abdul endorsement box
980:07:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
209:Template:WikiProject Michigan
200:and see a list of open tasks.
961:14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
941:14:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
923:04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
904:21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
875:04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
857:18:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
836:01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
785:06:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
719:03:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
696:06:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
678:18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
651:03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
592:06:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
577:00:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
557:09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
514:00:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
488:00:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
469:17:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
438:01:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
307:22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
1018:00:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
999:00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
769:01:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
409:16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
1068:
755:Please see my response on
390:15:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
367:14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
330:19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
286:14:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
270:18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
232:project's importance scale
225:
156:
114:Elections and Referendums
75:
70:Elections and Referendums
57:
249:New Target Insyghts poll
861:I tried, was declined.
336:for some objections --
39:This article is rated
947:Supporting citations
187:WikiProject Michigan
790:No endorsement box
45:content assessment
906:
890:comment added by
721:
525:Comment added by
471:
455:comment added by
262:Legionaire Editor
246:
245:
242:
241:
238:
237:
212:Michigan articles
135:
134:
131:
130:
16:(Redirected from
1059:
914:
866:
739:
734:
642:
602:
568:
505:
499:
479:
378:
312:Candidate photos
214:
213:
210:
207:
204:
181:
176:
175:
174:
165:
158:
157:
152:
144:
137:
125:
124:
121:
118:
115:
108:our project page
102:electoral reform
84:
77:
76:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1022:
1021:
1006:
987:
968:
949:
912:
864:
849:Criticalthinker
844:
814:Criticalthinker
792:
749:
744:
743:
742:
735:
731:
640:
596:
566:
503:
493:
477:
401:Criticalthinker
375:Criticalthinker
372:
359:Criticalthinker
354:
314:
299:Criticalthinker
294:
278:Criticalthinker
251:
211:
208:
205:
202:
201:
179:Michigan portal
177:
172:
170:
150:
122:
119:
116:
113:
112:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1065:
1063:
1055:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1024:
1023:
1005:
1002:
986:
983:
967:
964:
948:
945:
944:
943:
928:
927:
926:
925:
880:
879:
878:
877:
843:
840:
839:
838:
824:
791:
788:
772:
771:
748:
745:
741:
740:
728:
727:
723:
717:comment added
701:
700:
699:
698:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
546:
545:
544:
543:
538:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
443:
442:
441:
440:
426:
411:
393:
392:
353:
350:
349:
348:
322:24.127.238.196
313:
310:
293:
290:
289:
288:
250:
247:
244:
243:
240:
239:
236:
235:
228:Low-importance
224:
218:
217:
215:
198:the discussion
183:
182:
166:
154:
153:
151:Low‑importance
145:
133:
132:
129:
128:
126:
85:
73:
72:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1064:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1003:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
984:
982:
981:
977:
973:
965:
963:
962:
958:
954:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
929:
924:
920:
916:
915:
908:
907:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
882:
881:
876:
872:
868:
867:
860:
859:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
796:
789:
787:
786:
782:
778:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
752:
747:Third Parties
746:
738:
733:
730:
726:
722:
720:
716:
710:
706:
697:
693:
689:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
652:
648:
644:
643:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
618:
614:
610:
606:
600:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
569:
561:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
542:
539:
537:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
528:
515:
511:
507:
506:
497:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
480:
473:
472:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
447:
446:
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
425:
421:
417:
412:
410:
406:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
364:
360:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
318:
311:
309:
308:
304:
300:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
254:
248:
233:
229:
223:
220:
219:
216:
199:
195:
194:
189:
188:
180:
169:
167:
164:
160:
159:
155:
149:
146:
143:
139:
127:
110:
109:
104:
103:
98:
97:
92:
91:
86:
83:
79:
78:
74:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1007:
988:
969:
950:
910:
886:— Preceding
862:
793:
773:
750:
732:
724:
702:
659:
638:
633:
612:
564:
547:
524:
501:
475:
451:— Preceding
355:
319:
315:
295:
260:
255:
252:
227:
191:
185:
106:
100:
94:
88:
51:WikiProjects
953:Steelbeard1
933:Steelbeard1
913:Nevermore27
865:Nevermore27
828:Redandready
799:Steelbeard1
713:—Preceding
641:Nevermore27
567:Nevermore27
504:Nevermore27
478:Nevermore27
430:Redandready
416:Redandready
338:Redandready
41:Start-class
1026:Categories
1010:WavyPhoton
991:WavyPhoton
842:Protection
725:References
688:Libertyguy
617:WP:EDITWAR
492:That said
777:Wolfsden3
761:Tillerh11
670:Wolfsden3
662:Wolfsden3
599:Wolfsden3
584:Wolfsden3
549:Wolfsden3
527:wolfsden3
382:Tillerh11
96:elections
900:contribs
892:Buildsit
888:unsigned
634:at least
465:contribs
453:unsigned
203:Michigan
193:Michigan
148:Michigan
715:undated
705:Kruggsy
613:may not
609:WP:BOLD
352:Infobox
292:Polling
230:on the
605:WP:BRD
496:Esq4rt
457:Esq4rt
47:scale.
972:MB298
686:it.--
1014:talk
995:talk
976:talk
957:talk
937:talk
919:talk
896:talk
871:talk
853:talk
832:talk
818:talk
803:talk
781:talk
765:talk
709:talk
692:talk
674:talk
666:talk
647:talk
588:talk
573:talk
553:talk
510:talk
484:talk
461:talk
434:talk
420:talk
405:talk
386:talk
363:talk
342:talk
326:talk
303:talk
282:talk
266:talk
966:map
711:)
222:Low
1028::
1016:)
997:)
978:)
959:)
939:)
921:)
902:)
898:•
873:)
855:)
834:)
820:)
805:)
797:.
783:)
767:)
759:.
694:)
676:)
649:)
590:)
575:)
555:)
512:)
486:)
467:)
463:•
436:)
422:)
407:)
388:)
365:)
344:)
328:)
305:)
284:)
276:--
268:)
99:,
1012:(
993:(
974:(
955:(
935:(
917:(
894:(
869:(
851:(
830:(
816:(
801:(
779:(
763:(
707:(
690:(
672:(
664:(
645:(
601::
597:@
586:(
571:(
551:(
508:(
498::
494:@
482:(
459:(
432:(
418:(
403:(
384:(
377::
373:@
361:(
340:(
324:(
301:(
280:(
264:(
234:.
111:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
