Talk:2009 New York's 20th congressional district special election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Polls

There has been one opinion poll for this race. I post it in the article and it keeps getting deleted. Why?

Because Wikipedia has a liberal bias... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

Source	Date	Scott Murphy (D)	Jim Tedisco (R)
Public Opinion Strategies	February 6, 2009	29%	50%

Line graph

Is the line graph really necessary? It contains identical information to the chart, and five polls aren't exactly difficult to understand. I'm shrinking it for now, but I really question its necessity, period. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it works well, but I'm a tad biased. :-) I made it because graphical representations of opinion polls are much easier to see trends, even if the stats are still easy to understand. It doesn't hurt the article, does it? It's also used in this wikinews article (admittedly, I wrote it). I personally think it's used well in both places. upstateNYer 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt the article, which is why I didn't remove it without support from others. It would certainly be valuable in a presidential or even gubernatorial race where there are dozens and dozens of polls over time. I just don't think it's needed for an election with only five opinion polls. But like I said, I'm going to leave it to others to make the final decision. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Um... I'm undecided. Lots of people are visual, and graphs can be helpful, but it isn't necessary for five polls. Which of course doesn't mean it doesn't add to the article... Hmm.... --Muboshgu (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's useful to see the numbers in both forms. The eyes make sense of the line graph faster than the numbers, even with the table cells highlighted as they are. Chadlupkes (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Section: Libertarian Party

While I definitely think its noteworthy that Sundwall blames Tedisco for the ballot challenge and has subsequently endorsed Murphy, featuring his un-sourced and highly incendiary remarks in blockquotes places undue balance towards his assertion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's not terribly fair as currently worded. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't like having the blockquote either. I removed one of Tedisco criticizing the bailout a week or so ago. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, and it's too political to simply quote what a self-serving politician says, no matter what agenda they're pushing. It's noteworthy that Sundwall blames Tedisco and endorsed Murphy, it's noteworthy that Tedisco denies involvement. I think that's all that needs to be said, but it should be said by journalists writing the articles using the candidates as the subjects of their story. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Tally

The current tally now stands at 178 for Murphy, should someone change the total in the article? http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/Elections/2009/Special/20thCDSpecialUnofficialResults041609b.pdf 12.203.0.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Over, probably

Tedisco has announced that he'll not contest the final result, which will almost certainly be in Murphy's favor. (Haven't time to update the article myself.) 68.249.1.170 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Final vote tally causing concession

In the lead, it says that Tedisco was up by 401 votes, but in the Election results section, it says 399. Both have BOE sources. I realize they were on two different days, but they both imply that the respective number forced Tedisco to concede. Can you pick one and just stay consistent? I would suggest going with the 401 on the day of concession, but I'll leave that up to you. upstateNYer 15:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the lead says that Murphy was up by 401 on April 23, Election results has him at 399 on April 24. I'm going to include the final 726 vote margin in the lead, though.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gah, just reread what you wrote. I'll go with the 401, it seems a better choice.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Murphy-Sundwall debate photo

I found a great photo for the Murphy-Sundwall debate, [1]. Just putting the link here for reference, don't know if the creator will give permission or we can use it per fair use.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you can't see Sundwall's face in either of those photos, I don't think it's a good photo to use. Plus, that user on Flickr is a member of the local media that gets some great shots. I've actually been waiting for a really good photo to ask to use; I don't want to scare him away, because if he released images based on request, it would be great for this project. Still working on it. upstateNYer 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, and I deleted my request comment. You're right, he has some really good photos.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got that photo. upstateNYer 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the photo I was referring to here is just a new version of File:Scott Murphy sworn in.jpg. I removed it temporarily because I used the wrong license. The new version is promotional material, not the property of a media source.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's from Scott Murphy's site, then it's PD-US Congress. You should reupload the image at Commons. The old version should be deleted because the original file was fair use (even though I think that rationale was questionable a bit). upstateNYer 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too sure of the license when I uploaded it. I've uploaded the image at commons, File:2009-04-29 Scott Murphy Swearing In.JPG. The old one can be safely deleted.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)