Talk:2013 Virginia gubernatorial election

Refocus on two candidates

This article should be entirely refocused on the two candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No it should not. Wikipedia should be party neutral and cover all the candidates, to the extent possible equally well. I really do think that is possible. It's not like Robert is a hermit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.10.107 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

All candidates on the ballot should receive equal coverage on Wikipedia (keep it non-biased). JoshMcCullough (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to refocus

This article's content seems quite out of balance by party, particularly as it relates to republican candidacy and dialogue (multiple paragraphs and lopsided poll statistics).

I'm recommending that this article be reformatted to either build out associative polls.

I also question the formatting as it relates to consistently placing republican candidates on top, both via the primaries and even down to the web URLs for the candidates themselves.

Certainly the article should not have as it's current main starting page now not the republican primary result set, as that is not current nor would it be as beneficial to the reader as who the candidates are. abstergo abstergo accendo (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment to the current editor for my rational for the refocus of the article, removing content which should be on drill-able pages and not in this article [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

An election is a historical event, not just a tally sheet. That your edit removes any mention of Bill Bolling is a major problem, as the way the Virginia Republicans essentially rigged the primary for Cuccinelli is a pretty major part of the story of this election. I'd also like to note that dropping a note on a user's talk page does not replace the need to discuss on the article's talk page. I'm not watching Tiller's talk page, but I am watching this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the two people, I'm looking at it as a viewer, and I can tell you that, that section should be included in a controversy section. Much less I didn't even see what you are mentioning here. Do you agree that the content is bloated though, particularly as it related to the double entries of 'Connolly' and listing the republican primary as the main page content. abstergo abstergo accendo (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see listing Jim Webb as a potential? What is that citation, a random blog post that this guy should run from over year ago. This article needs the reformat, impeding it with rationale to include that 'person A cheated person B' without a controversy section, well it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Criticism. Only badly written articles have "controversy" sections. To us, the Cuccineli-Bolling thing "might" be controversial, but to others it isn't. Making it say "controversy" is POV. I don't see "bloat" in this article, it has less than 1500 characters of prose, and a number of tables with polling data. The fact that the Republican nominating process has more written about it than the Democratic nominating process means that the Republican section will be longer, as McAuliffe basically has the nomination by default. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the point on Webb, though. The claim that he's a "potential" candidate was sourced to a blog priding itself as "Virginia's Conservative Voice" and based only on their own speculation. That doesn't cut it, so I deleted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu here, there's nothing in the article that's bloated and I can't see anything that's worthy of a "controversy" section. If one of the candidates used a racial slur then yes, that would warrant one.

As for "consistently placing republican candidates on top", the incumbent party comes first. Whether it's a Senate, gubernatorial or presidential race, the incumbent party is listed first. That's the reason why the Republican candidates are "on top".

With regards to the article focusing "too much" on the Republican primary, that's because not much has happened on the Democratic side - Mark Warner thought about running for Governor again, but didn't. Creigh Deeds passed up a second run leaving Terry McAuliffe the only major candidate. On the GOP side, the move from a primary to a convention, as Muboshgu said, lead to Bolling withdrawing. He then considered running as an Independent (hence the polling of a 3-way race) but decided not to. This is important to the election, which is a record of the entire election and not just the general election, Democrat vs Republican. If you'd like to expand the Democratic primary section, please go ahead and do so. But to try and redress the "balance" by going the other way and mass deleting information on the GOP primary isn't the right thing to do. Tiller54 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I did some research. Sorry for wasting your time and thank you both for the information. abstergo abstergo accendo (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As a reader I still like the controversy section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy editing! Tiller54 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note this "That your edit removes any mention of Bill Bolling is a major problem, as the way the Virginia Republicans essentially rigged the primary for Cuccinelli is a pretty major part of the story of this election. I'd also like to note that dropping a note on a user's talk page does not replace the need to discuss on the article's talk page. I'm not watching Tiller's talk page, but I am watching this page." and

'essentially rigged an election' I did not get that at all from the article or citation, so I have no clue about this rationale.

I like the controversy sections in wiki pages, they improve searching and readability. As do many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeEditorLatinAmerica (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you would like a controversy section, but there isn't a need for one. Tiller54 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading the article more closely, I can say that we need some prose in the Democratic section. We can talk about McAuliffe, in context of this and the 2009 gubernatorial election, and say something about the other potential Democratic candidates. We should find something on Connolly; he was polled once and must've been at least discussed as a potential candidate by a reputable journalist. I believe that will satisfy the concern that this article is slanted towards Republicans. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

An editor has raised a concern about neutrality of the Republican primary section. I think that's a fair assessment of what happened, though maybe there is some wording that portrays Bolling a little too much as the victim? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Sarvis

Ballotpedia is not a reliable source for a biography. Even if it were, this election page is not the place for an unsourced, slanted biogrpahy of a non-notable candidate. Finally, how many Virginians voted for a 3rd party candidate in the 2012 U.S. presidential election has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party's primary. Tiller54 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A wiki can't be used as a source in a wiki. The bit on 3rd party candidates in 2012 is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and especially misleading. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Primarily, I would like to point out that Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is still a biased article. User:Tiller54 had it pointed out earlier on his talk page that the majority of the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013's text favors one party over other candidates and nominees. I also expressed this concern to User: Muboshgu, but it seems this section has been ignored, removed, or relocated.

Second, User:Tiller54 has had previous complaints regarding the removal of posts for partisan motives as mentioned on Moboshgu's talk page User: Muboshgu. This complaint is listed as, tiller54 is removing for partisan purposes.. please check the nyc campaign finance board for confirmation of my valid candidacy. Again, this editor, User: Muboshgu, seems to have passed over a valid complaint.

In addition, there is background text, some of it outdated, regarding Republican candidates on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Yet, background text regarding other candidates, be it Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent, is considered partisan? No, I don't think so. You can't have it both ways.

Third, User:Tiller54 and User: Muboshgu say that Robert Sarvis is a non-notable candidate because he is not listed in polls. Sure, that's true; Robert Sarvis is not listed in the polls. But, third party candidates are often excluded from polling, so this isn't a fair basis. What makes a candidate notable in the State of Virginia is not polls, but if he or she is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections (VSBE). Candidates in the State of Virginia have until the deadline in June to submit the 10,000 signatures necessary to be on the ballot as a gubernatorial candidate. So any statement about who is a notable candidate and who isn't is speculation until declared by the VSBE. Robert Sarvis has been recognized by the VSBE in the past as a candidate for Virginia's State Senate District 35, and will probably meet the requirements in June... especially considering there were over 50,000 Virginians who voted for a third party candidate in the 2012 Presidential Elections. This is verified by the VSBE on their website at https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/68C30477-AAF2-46DD-994E-5D3BE8A89C9B/Official/1_s.shtml In addition, the reliance on polls is skewed, because many of the current polls show that there is a larger percentage of undecideds than those who have chosen a candidate. So to say Robert Sarvis, or other candidates, is a non-notable candidate at this time is disingenuous at best.

Therefore, I do not believe a background statement regarding a declared nominee in the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is cause for removal, especially when other declared candidates on the same page do.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Reallibertyforall(talk) 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Robert Sarvis is the Libertarian Party nominee for governor is the only piece of information relevant regarding Mr. Sarvis on this page. His background and personal information would belong on his page, if one existed. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Then, I think the consensus should be that the information and background text regarding the Republican candidates, such as the controversy between Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling, is unnecessary and should also be removed. Especially considering that this information is already mentioned on both Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli. Reallibertyforall(talk) 03:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the Cuccinelli-Bolling maneuvering had significant mainstream coverage; the Libertarian Party nomination process did not. I actually looked to see if I could find enough material in reliable sources to establish WP:GNG (the Wikipedia standard of notability) for Sarvis. All I came up with was a pre-Election Day profile in the Patch community papers for his 2011 race with Dick Saslaw. It's about documenting the process to WP standards, and frankly, the material for Sarvis doesn't appear to be there. Rklear (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Much of the information regarding Cuccinelli-Bolling on this page is opinion.

Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, elected to the post in 2005, decided to run for re-election as lieutenant governor in 2009 to allow McDonnell to run for governor without a primary, praised by many Republicans as a noble act (Opinion). After the 2009 election, Bolling made no secret of his intention to run for governor in 2013, while Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli openly stated that he was considering three options: a run for re-election as attorney general in 2013, running for the U.S. Senate in 2014, and running for governor in 2013.[1] On November 30, 2011, The Washington Post reported that Cuccinelli would announce a run for governor within days (Outdated). Cuccinelli announced to colleagues on December 1, 2011, that he was indeed running (Redundant, considering he now the Republican nominee).[2]

Bolling responded on the same day that he was disappointed that Cuccinelli decided to challenge him (Victimization, and attempt to appeal to the reader)[3] and withdrew from the race on November 28, 2012. He cited Republican Party's decision to move to a nominating convention rather than a primary (would be better placed under the Bolling tab). He did not rule out the possibility of running as an independent candidate but did rule out running for another term as Lieutenant Governor (Outdated, he has declined an independent run). Bolling also refused to endorse Cuccinelli (Attempt to appeal to the reader).[4]

In the end, you're left with very little substance with the Bolling-Cuccinelli text.

Rklear (talk) Thank you for doing research and attempting to contribute to the community by trying to establish WP:GNG for Libertarian Sarvis. He is listed as a previous candidate and noted in the Virginia State Board of Elections website under the November 2011 General Election Results, Senate District 35. https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2011/EB178FD6-875D-4B0D-A295-900A0482F523/Official/7_p2_s.shtml There is additional information regarding Sarvis on the Mercatus Center at George Mason University: he is a MA Fellow there. http://mercatus.org/robert-sarvis Reallibertyforall (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC). Revised 06:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is a discrepancy in dates: On November 30, 2011, The Washington Post reported that Cuccinelli would announce a run for governor within days. Cuccinelli announced to colleagues on December 1, 2011, that he was indeed running.[2] and Bolling responded on the same day that he was disappointed that Cuccinelli decided to challenge him[3] and withdrew from the race on November 28, 2012. Washington Post report (Nov 30). Cuccinelli's announcement (Dec 1). Bolling displeased (Dec 1), so Bolling withdrew (Nov 28)? Antarctica4Liberty 18:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your concern about the bias issue, I opened up a section above this (#NPOV?), which has illicited no response from anyone. I take it to mean that nobody else has a NPOV concern on this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To the other points:

• "Praised by many Republicans as a noble act" is not our opinion, it's the opinion of the Republicans who praised Bolling. Therefore it's not OR or SYNTH.
• The info regarding when Cuccinelli got into the race, I don't see that as redundant. Certainly Cuccinelli was not yet the nominee on December 1, 2011, though you state he was. A slight polishing of that wouldn't hurt though.
• Bolling's comments about feeling "victimized" as you say... I'm open to hearing opinions from others on that, but since he was so public with his displeasure, I don't see a problem with it.
• That Bolling openly considered an independent run and has chosen not to endorse the nominee of his party is pretty significant.
• Bolling withdrew in 2012. The other maneuverings were from 2011. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Praised by many Republicans as a noble act" Seems to have already been removed. But if it were reinstated, it lacks who citation.
• The info regarding when Cuccinelli got into the race. The information is redundant because the sentence regarding the Washington Post and Cuccinelli's announcement is nearly the same. The Washington Post sentence could be eliminated without compromising the paragraph.
• You could convey the information needed by saying that, Bolling withdrew from the race on November 28, 2012 without stating he was displeased with Cuccinelli. His dissapointment is his opinion and is cited on Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli.

Signature submissions for ballot access

I've added signature submission information under the minor party and write-in candidates, because minor party and independent candidates are certified for the ballot after sending their "Petitions of Qualified Voters" to the Virginia State Board of Elections. Antarctica4Liberty 03:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs)

Election infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am looking for the policy which states minor party candidates are not allowed in the election infobox. Antarctica4Liberty 08:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs)

Here is the discussion where consensus was reached concerning guidelines for inclusion of third party/independent candidates in the infobox. It was specifically disussing presidential elections, so it may not be applicable to statewide elections. There may need to be another discussion on that topic.--JayJasper (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Having passed 5% in opinion polls, the Libertarian candidate is in the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And now that the two most recent polls haven't included him, he should be out. – Muboshgu (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

BoldItalicSignature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite

Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox? 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. There are very few, if any, articles about the race that mention him beyond a passing mention. The 5% poll threshold given above is arbitrary. Significant third-party sources need to establish his relevance in the race, and as of yet, they have not. Instaurare (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• No I agree with Instaurare. He's not notable. 5% in polls is a bad metric to use, since third party candidates usually perform better in polls than they do on election day. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• No Mainstream coverage of Sarvis' campaign has mostly been limited to the occasional opinion column saying, "why don't we cover him, too?" However, until sources get beyond asking that question to answering it, it's not up to WP editors to Right Great Wrongs by giving him one-third of the article. I wouldn't insult him by saying he represents "fringe" ideas, but in terms of sources, he is definitely a "fringe" candidate. Rklear (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• No, I agree that a 5% poll threshold is arbitrary and and should not be used as a benchmark for inclusion in the infobox. If, however, he is included in a debate with one or both of the major candidates, then maybe he should be included.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, He has surpassed 10% in the most resent poll, and he appears on the ballot, I think that justifies his inclusion. B-watchmework (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, 1.) Robert Sarvis is ballot qualified and recognized as an official candidate by the Virginia State Board of Elections. 2.) Sarvis has polled above 5% (often considered the threshold for WP) and recently polled at 10%; reaching double digits is rare for a minor party candidate - let alone one in Virginia. 3.) The statements that Sarvis has limited coverage are false. A simple search for him on Google will result in numerous hits. For instance, he has primary articles in major news outlets like FOX News, Huffington Post, and another in FOX News. Sarvis also has primary articles in major state-wide publications, including a front cover article from Virginia's paper of record The Richmond Times-Dispatch as well as other articles from the Richmond Times-Dispatch like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one. In addition, he has significant coverage from other Virginia state and local publications, TV stations, and radio broadcasts including: The Charlottesville Newsplex, WTOP, The Daily Progress, Richmond CBS6, The Washington Post, WHSV Channel 3, FOX5 DC, WUSA9 DC, WAVY TV, NBC12, The Free Lance-Star, Style Weekly, WCHV Radio, etc, etc, etc. 4.) Sarvis has been endorsed by former New Mexico governor and 2012 libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson. 5.) As for relevance comment: if Sarvis obtains 10% of the vote on election day, the Libertarian Party of Virginia will secure ballot access, allowing the party to focus on campaigning instead of trying to meet Virginia's 10,000 signature requirement for statewide elections. If Sarvis splits the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe vote, his influence changes the political climate before the 2014 national elections. So to say his run is insignificant, that there are very few articles about Sarvis, or he's on the fringe is disingenuous, at best. To conclude: he's on the ballot, has polled above 5% in multiple polls, has polled at 10% according to Emerson College, and Sarvis has a fair amount of press coverage from a variety of sources. Sarvis should be included in the infobox. Thanks. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 09:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes As Reallibertyforall pointed out, it's not like Sarvis has only polled 5% once in a single poll that was taken a year ago, he's at 10% and he's been in the high single figures in several polls. Of course, polling at 10% and actually getting 10% of the vote are two completely different things... Tiller54 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's the point. If he gets 10% of the vote in the election, then include him in the infobox. But not for polls. People say they'll vote for a third party candidate, and then they by and large vote for the major party candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • So are you proposing removing the polling threshold altogether and having 3rd party/independent candidates only be included in the infobox if they win 5% or more of the vote in the election? Tiller54 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I would. "Polling at 5%" is arbitrary and meaningless. Is there any evidence that Sarvis is truly impacting this election? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Removing independent/third party candidates from the infobox when they're polling in significant numbers is the arbitrary move here. The move you're proposing would affect races like the Vermont Senate election, where an Independent beat the Republican with no Democrat on the ballot; the Maine Senate election, where an Independent beat the Democrat and the Republican; the Maine gubernatorial election, where the Republican barely beat and Independent candidate; and the Rhode Island gubernatorial election, where an Independent won in a 4-way race. In all of those examples, regardless of how well the (ultimately victorious) independent candidates were polling, only the Democratic and/or Republican candidates would be in the infobox. That would be the "arbitrary and meaningless" move here. Tiller54 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And in none of those cases should the independent be excluded. If Sarvis somehow manages to do well in November, he can be added to the infobox then. This is an encyclopedia article, NOT a news story. Polling is only of interest here as a historical fact. It should not be driving content. Rklear (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
            • "And in none of those cases should the independent be excluded." And yet, until the results were announced, they would have been. Why? Because clearly they weren't going to impact the election. Oops. Yeah, election articles are encyclopedia articles and as such they should not be biased against third party/independent candidates just because they're third party/independent candidates. Tiller54 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes His poll ratings are irrelevant. If there are three candidates, they should all be included in the infobox, otherwise it's an NPOV violation. This is yet another example of the problem that infoboxes cause with regards to NPOV. Number 57 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Poll ratings are relevant, otherwise the infobox could list a dozen or more candidates. Sarvis, polling at 10% is clearly not an also-ran. Tiller54 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • They aren't relevant. The number of candidates in some elections merely shows why election infoboxes are in many cases an NPOV violation. Number 57 09:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Infoboxes are not an "NPOV violation". Listing some guy who got a few hundred votes in the infobox is patently absurd. When a candidate impacts the race (ie: here), or has the potential to (ie: this page), they are included. Tiller54 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • "the potential to" does not stand up to WP:V or WP:CRYSTAL. Number 57 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
          • If someone's not polling at 5%, they aren't having an impact on the race. For example, these guys. Should the infobox be extended to include the "Unity is Strength" candidate or "Ed the Barber"? No. Why? Because they won't win 1% of the vote, let alone 5%. They are not notable and cramming the infobox with fringe candidates and write-in efforts who poll a few hundred votes is completely pointless. They will be included in the "candidates" section and then in the "results" section. That's more than enough and it is not "an NPOV violation" to not include in the infobox non-notable candidates who barely register on voting day. Tiller54 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
            • The 5% threshold is totally arbitrary. Besides, polling isn't the issue. Lack of coverage from sources is. Instaurare (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
              • No it's not. See the discussion linked above. As Reallibertyforall showed, Sarvis has had plenty of coverage from a wide variety of sources. Tiller54 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
                • Yes, but that is a rationale for the notability of his own BLP. Nobody is questioning his notability right now. Whether he warrants significant coverage here is the issue. Instaurare (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment All I see in the "debates" section is "McAuliffe and Cuccinelli", no Sarvis. That should say it all. – Muboshgu (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note - RfC posted to Talk:Ken Cuccinelli, Talk:Terry McAuliffe, and Talk:Robert Sarvis on 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC) seeking more input. Instaurare (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• On August 16, 2013, I submitted context under the "debates" section about Sarvis and provided sources. That information was removed by user Rklear later the same day. Instead, it was moved to the debate summary paragraphs. I will resubmit the Sarvis debate context under the individual debates. Feel free to look it up in the page's edit history. Thanks! --Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 05:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No. The sources don't cover Sarvis nearly as much as the others. Muboshgu's point that he's doing better in polls than he'll do in the election is a important, so him receiving 10% in one poll is not enough to put him in the infobox. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is more than one poll that has Sarvis in double digits.--Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 06:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes: Sarvis has gotten a lot of media attention, has far surpassed the 5% polling margin and is a very notable candidate, simply because he is doing better than most Libertarians ever do. He deserves inclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Libertarians often poll where Sarvis is polling. And then they underperform their polling numbers as voters chose a major candidate. This is nothing new. – Muboshgu (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes: For the aforementioned reasons by others. We'd be violating NPOV were we to remove him. --Ariostos (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, at least according to the cross-tabs of recent polls, a little over a quarter of Sarvis's support is from registered members of the Republican Party. Now, if there were any decline it would be in that direction given that it is the Republican candidate that is behind; however, with the most recent polls averaged, even if every single Republican supporter deserted him, Sarvis would be polling at 6.5%, still above the margin for inclusion. At the same time, it should also be noted that polls that include third-party candidates don't often take into the fact that there is more than one candidate on the ballot in a particular state, or in the nation. For example, a person who said they were supporting a third-party candidate in a poll might actually be leaning towards an entirely different candidate, something shown in a number of Gallup's polls where Stein and Goode were included, with Johnson performing less than he had when he was alone. However here in Virginia, there are no other third-party candidates on the ballot; unless Salahi and Parmele have supporters of significant number, many of those who are saying they are inclined to vote for Sarvis are likely to mean that they are indeed going to vote for Sarvis. Suffice to say, I am certain that we won't see the kind of decline we normally witness with third party candidacies, though he may be tarred as a spoiler, with calls for him to drop out on the part of Republicans. --Ariostos (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a lot of original research and personal opinion. Instaurare (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well all the materials are here; we have the Virginia polls within the article itself, and the polls I mentioned regarding the 2012 Presidential Election are within its National Opinion polling section, both with links to the source itself. I fail to see where my opinion plays in except for the very last part, which I see happening in some form. --Ariostos (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Without a clear consensus, how do we proceed? I would point to WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:RGW. Instaurare (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment What I think has been debated above is not as much about the infobox specifically, but about including Sarvis in general. To include a third candidate in the infobox, I think we need long-form articles that are not just about a recent poll, but that describe this as a real "three-way race." That's at least what I'm looking for if we want three people in the infobox.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that that is simply not possible unless you have a figure like Anderson or Perot with high visibility in the race who is capable of reaching first place under the right conditions. There is no evidence that Sarvis's support will reach those levels, but he has managed to poll in the high single to low double digits all the same, which necessitates his display. If he drops back below the five percent barrier than I will be all for removing him. --Ariostos (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Who decided the 5% barrier? It's entirely arbitrary and has no consensus. Also, if it's not possible, WP:RGW applies here. Instaurare (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

5% is the threshold of notoriety that is commonly used. This was first mentioned specifically on the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 view history page on 20 May, 2013 at 10:14 by User:Tiller54. Regardless, as I have mentioned previously, there are numerous articles about Sarvis. I can quickly find articles about him and his role in the governor's race in a google search. Here's a recent one that shows it's a three way race from CNN, and if you look at the comments on the CNN page it's apparent he has support.-- Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The issue is not his notoriety. No one is objecting to covering him in the article. The issue is the infobox. (Also, CNN did not say it was a three way race; far from it, they said he could play a spoiler role.) Instaurare (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact Sarvis is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections should be reason enough for inclusion in the infobox. He's a ballot qualified candidate. This has been discussed before. I added the CNN article to specifically address Patrick's concern, which is to show that there are articles which include McAuliffe, Cuccinelli, and Sarvis. (FYI, I have updated other articles than this, please don't categorize me as a WP:SPA ) Reallibertyforall(talk) Antarctica4Liberty 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC) — Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For every race on Wikipedia, if a candidate polls five percent they are added to the infobox. By extension this should apply to the period before the election is held. If he polls below that point consistently, or fails to obtain five percent in November, then he can be removed as is custom. --Ariostos (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from, may I ask? Instaurare (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any set rule, more of a guideline. However it is generally followed in the case of FPTP elections. I and others discussed this is length while the 2012 Presidential election was ongoing, and due to the disparity of polls that involved people like Johnson or Stein, we set ballot access as the barometer, specifically electors on file. We can't do that here though, and so we are back to the mention of polls, where in this case Sarvis has now been regularly included as an actual choice rather than "other". I can try and bring in William Saturn, as he has been here longer and may know where it might be in fine print. --Ariostos (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just messaged him. --Ariostos (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The five percent threshold is not an arbitrary measure. It comes from the works of Walter Dean Burnham, who is the authority on electoral matters. According to Burnham, a five percent showing denotes a successful third party run. That has been the threshold used on these pages. Since he has polled at five percent, he should be included on the template at least until the results come in. If he falls below five percent in the final polls, then he should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Using that threshold still needs consensus, no? Instaurare (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It already has consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Where? Is this a policy? Instaurare (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

William S. Saturn's right, there was a consensus on a threshold of 5% in polls/election results for inclusion in the infobox. I can't remember where it was decided. On an election page a couple of years ago I think. Tiller54 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the principles of Wikipedia is that there is no deadline. Since the this article exists to record, for encyclopedic purposes, the events surrounding this election, I propose that we suspend the infobox as is for six weeks, and then reopen this discussion. bd2412 T 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newsmax/Zogby Poll

Initially I was opposed to this polls removal, but to be honest, I can't find the specifics of the poll anywhere, at least those qualities in question like the margin or the sample size. Anyone have better luck? --Ariostos (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any specific numbers on the margin of error or sample size, either. --Reallibertyforall(talk) Antarctica4Liberty 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Found it. --Reallibertyforall(talk)Antarctica4Liberty 07:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Update Robert Sarvis Photo

Use this image here:

Robert Sarvis, 2013 Gubernatorial candidate for Virginia.

Cannot update myself as article is protected.

JoshMcCullough (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Sarvis' photo has been removed at least twice (check the history) even though it was legitimately uploaded both times w/proper rights. JoshMcCullough (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the current photo was legitimately uploaded by Sarvis himself, but I don't know how to check such things. Instaurare (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I posted the photo on his behalf as a member of his campaign team. What proof do I need to show? (Also, I'm not sure why it matters, should he not have a photo up alongside the other two?) JoshMcCullough (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for verifying that you're part of the Sarvis campaign. I had thought you were, but weren't sure. Of course that means you should be careful when editing due to the conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean your contributions here aren't valuable. The best way to go ahead and get this image posted and make sure it stays posted is to verify that it is from the Sarvis campaign. You should work through the Open Source Ticket Request System to donate the image and verify its origin. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please fix Sarvis' photo, again? File: Robert_Sarvis.jpg JoshMcCullough (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, click on the link to the Open Source Ticket Request System and follow the instructions there to donate the image. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I did and the request is pending. JoshMcCullough (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that. My bad. I'm not actually sure if it can go up while it's pending or if it needs to be approved first. Someone else might know more than I. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Sarvis Not Invited to Virginia Tech Debate; Falls One Percent Short Link from Politico here. I'm honestly disappointed and a slightly angered by this. --Ariostos (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Completely agree, this is ridiculous. JoshMcCullough (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I think it's important to mention that the VA Tech debate rules where "negotiated by Cuccinelli, McAuliffe and the debate’s sponsor — WDBJ (Channel 7), the Roanoke CBS affiliate" - a clear conflict of interest when two parties are allowed to help decide the rules regarding a third party's inclusion! (source) JoshMcCullough (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Instaurare (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of early voters poll

I've noticed that a poll produced by PPP (http://www.scribd.com/doc/178109125/VA-Gov-PPP-for-LCV-Oct-2013-Early-Voters-Only) has been added and removed several times since it was released. The issue is that this poll was unusually taken among people who were self-admitted early voters, and not among registered or likely voters like most polls. Is there a precedent for treating polls such as these in polling tables or elsewhere? The poll itself has good information that it would be a shame to lose, but it is so different from the others it seems to be causing problems. - S201676 (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

New Newsmax/Zogby Poll

http://www.zogbyanalytics.com/news/369-newsmax-zogby-tracking-poll-mcauliffe-headed-for-big-win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.85.20 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. They did multiple overlapping tracking polls in the final week, so I added 2 non-overlapping ones. Tiller54 (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)