Talk:2022 Los Angeles mayoral election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Eden Cristo mayoral candidacy relevance

Though I added Eden Cristo to the page, I wanted to have a discussion about their potential relevance. They have a few hundred Instagram followers, three YouTube subscribers, and tens of Twitter followers. Though this is not a lot, a candidate cannot be fully defined by their social media followers. Cristo's biggest claim to find is a group called We Humyns, which I cannot find a lot about but claims to have its goal as bringing humans to Mars. What are everyone's thoughts? I never want to hurt a grassroots candidate, especially one from a marginalized community, but cannot tell how legitimate the candidacy is. PickleG13 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

James Caspari mayoral candidacy relevance

Emailed city clerk, indicating a desire to run. Per Election Code section 307, "Between 115 and 90 days prior to the Primary Nominating Election, the City Clerk shall issue to each candidate a petition for nomination". James Caspari Shall file at such time and furnish proof if he moves forward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.1.241 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This does not count as sourcing. Nothing that has been provided is sourcing. I trust that your edits are in good faith, but they are disruptive and I am considering appealing this matter to a Wikipedia admin to get your IP address blocked from editing this page. "Potential" candidates are by-and-large reserved for notable people with Wikipedia pages, and people who do not meet such standards are frequently removed; additionally, there is no evidence provided that Caspari will run, other than faith. While I do trust that Caspari will run, and we will be happy to add him to "Other declared candidates later," these edits must be removed for now. PickleG13 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I double checked as well and there are no reliable sources indicating a run. No reliable sources, no inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Updated description for Mark Ridley-Thomas:

Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles City Councilor, 10th District, former Los Angeles County Supervisor 2603:8000:705:93E8:447F:ADA1:9967:9976 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Lln03 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

"The following candidates (listed alphabetically) have held office, have been included in polls, or have been the subject of significant media coverage." The California Unruh Act as well as federal law regarding candidates, does not give Wikipedia the right to segregate candidates in this manner, not does the law permit Wikipedia/page author the authority to denial full and equal advantages and opportunity to any candidate. Liveenchantedlife (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is a normal standard throughout Wikipedia, I trust the WMF's legal advice over yours. You might find WP:NLT to be helpful as well. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

YJ Draiman -- Major candidate / declared?

Hello all! Just added new NC member Alex Gruenenfelder to Major candidates. YJ Draiman, perhaps most notable as a perennial candidate and the father of the lead singer of Disturbed, once served on the Northridge NC -- to the best of my recollection. Do we have solid sourcing of him running in 2022, and should he be added to the major candidates section? NC members are city officials, so I feel he likely should, but don't know. PickleG13 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Candidate Photos

Hi!

I work for the May for LA campaign. We know Joseph has not yet met the requirements to be considered a major candidate under Wikipedia's guidelines. However, we have gone ahead and uploaded a headshot to Commons that can be used once he qualifies:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_May_Headshot_June_2021.jpg --Mayforla (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Neighborhood Councils / Major candidate criteria

I have moved Alex Gruenfelder back down to the Other Declared Candidates section of this page. Being on a Neighborhood Council is not, on its own, a qualification to be considered a major candidate. Neighborhood council members aren't elected by residents but by other attendees of neighborhood council meetings. There are 99 neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, which probably means there are close to 1,000 neighborhood council board members at any given time in LA. Neighborhood councils control a budget of about $32,000 per year and beyond that have little to no power - they can't write laws or regulations, for example. And, most importantly: a candidate who only served as a neighborhood council member has never come close to being elected mayor in LA. It's just not enough. Friendship hurricane (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The requirement for major candidacy is to have held office, with Neighborhood Council does qualify as. As the current City Controller shows, NC people can get elected to things. Public elections occur every number of years for members of the neighborhood councils, so they are not generally elected by attendees. You can make the argument as a criticism of the NC system, but the standard of "holding office" is achieved, as the city of Los Angeles deems NC members to be public officials. PickleG13 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, Neighborhood Council board members are not officeholders in any meaningful sense of the word: they are not elected by voters, they cannot be recalled, they have little to no impact on policy or regulations. And to your point about the City Controller: Ron Galperin was a prominent, connected voice in LA politics in addition to serving on a Neighborhood Council, making him more notable than the other hundreds of board members (for example, he was appointed to the Commission on Revenue Efficiency before running for CC). Finally: City Controller and Mayor aren't the same office, so I'm not sure why you'd apply the same notability standard to candidates for them. Friendship hurricane (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Major candidates?

Hi all! Though I was the one who added the major versus other candidates criteria based on 2021 New York City mayoral election, that has since been removed. Similarly, the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election lacks Major candidate versus Other candidate criteria. A few months ago, someone did remove this separate box and I returned it, thinking they had been in error. However, I am now curious what the standard is. I would like to invite discussion. I am now leaning toward returning things to just Declared, Declined, Withdrawn and Potential, but want to do what is standardized. I created this page with Major candidates in mind, but am now uncertain. Thanks so much! PickleG13 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe there is value in maintaining a distinction between major candidates and the rest of the folks who've filed - in an upcoming election, voters typically want to know who, among the candidates that have filed, stands a real chance at winning the office - to put Joe Buscaino and Mike Feuer on the same level of prominence as, say, Evan Jasek (a candidate who has no website and doesn't appear to have any endorsements or have done any campaigning in over a year) does a disservice to the audience and makes Wikipedia less helpful. I think the current criteria we have (past/current officeholders, poll appearances, news coverage) is an ok barometer, provided we can drill down a little more on how we define those terms (IE: the neighborhood council debate you and I had, what constitutes significant media coverage, etc). I get that these conversations can be a little tricky, but if the end result is a more useful page, I think it merits the work. --Friendship hurricane (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Councilmember versus Councilor

We all know what this debate is on the page. I have always seen and heard "Councilmember," but mostly anonymous editors keep switching it to "Councilor". Joe Buscaino and Mike Feuer both have their current and former job title respectively listed as "member of the Council". This might be what we have to do, but I think we need an official policy and consensus. I also recognize that about two or three of us frequently edit this page, since the primary election is nearly a year away, but I believe we should have a standard. What are everyone's thoughts? PickleG13 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. My first thought was to look at Wikipedia's style guide, but I couldn't find anything specifically related to this. I did a little research on other sites: AP, LAT, and NYT all use gendered identifiers (councilwoman/councilman), which frankly feels a little behind the times. NPR and KPCC use "Council Member" and sometimes "Council member" and "Councilmember." The LA city website uses "Council Member," so I'd suggest going with that. Councilmember would be fine with me, too, but if we're having a discussion of style I lean towards falling in line with the city's official usage of the title. I've never heard or read Councilor in this context and agree with you it should go. --Friendship hurricane (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. I will keep it "member of the council" for the next few days to allow for discussion, if anyone wants to voice their support for Councilor, but I have no idea why people keep calling for it. PickleG13 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Publicly expressed interest" category

Since I've started trying to improve/update this page, I've notice some editors added a "Publicly expressed interest" section to the list of potential candidates, and with the news about Karen Bass doing exactly that, I wanted to jump start that discussion here before that edit comes in again. Should we have a section/category specifically for candidates who have publicly expressed interest? I don't see any value in it, but I'm willing to hear out other takes. Friendship hurricane (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Baiscally every Wikipedia election article does this. When there are a lot of potential candidates it's helpful for readers to filter out the ones that have actually said "yeah I might run" rather than just some random journalist thinking they might run. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

First off: it's pretty arrogant, dismissive and against the spirit of Wikipedia to revert my edits without making any effort to talk this through. I've been working in good faith to make this article a worthwhile resource for readers, and this is the first time you've contributed to the talk page (albeit after you helicoptered in and reverted my edit).

Second: There are 9 total potential candidates right now, that hardly qualifies as "a lot." And if, as your "some rando journalist" comment suggests, you have an issue with the sourcing on the candidates, that's a separate matter. Serious, viable candidates constantly use targeted leaks and unattributed quotes to express interest in running. And ironically, one of these candidates you listed as "publicly expressed interest" is a columnist who wrote one tongue-in-cheek article about the race with no other demonstrated intent to enter it. I think there needs to be something more concrete and useful than this to merit a section. Publicly dropping a hint is a bad barometer of gauging intent / seriousness.

I'm not gonna get into an edit war with you (looking at your talk page, that seems like it's more your M.O.), but I would like some actual consensus on the issue and will ask for a third opinion. Friendship hurricane (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

• I saw this earlier at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Before I provide any opinion, I want to understand your position, Friendship hurricane. You seem to want to merge "Publicly expressed interest" and "Potential" into one subsection called "Potential", right? It seems your argument is that the separation is unnecessary and is sometimes ambiguous. BottleOfChocolateMilk's position seems to be that its done in other articles so it should be done here too and that such a separation is helpful. BottleOfChocolateMilk, can you provide examples of other articles in which this is done?VR _talk 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's basically it, yeah. I'd also add that the article right now has 6 categories, which is a lot. I filed the 3O request because the other editor in this dispute just kind of plops in changes and doesn't really engage with others here. This was literally the first time he's made any attempt to communicate. Friendship hurricane (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Other candidates to add?

According to this page on the LA City Clerk website there are a good number of candidates running for mayor who aren't in this article. Should we include them? --Friendship hurricane (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends if they have made a public announcement. I would say to look up each one. Since we had an "Announcement pending" section already with Bass, we could certainly do that. PickleG13 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New batch of edits

I have made a new batch of edits on this article and, as the election is now just months away, I wanted to explain them all in detail.

First, I have eliminated the section "Publicly expressed interest" because it contained exactly one person after editing, and combined it with "Potential". The "Withdrew" section has been renamed "Withdrawn" to match general standard. Asher Luzzatto was removed from "Publicly expressed interest" and moved to "Did not qualify for ballot" because he did officially launch a campaign and raised more than $100,000, then exited the race without an official announcmement of Withdrawal. If someone deleted their campaign pages prior to the filing deadline (ex: Helan Mahmood), they have been moved to "Withdrawn"; if they had campaign pages we sourced before, and simply did not file a Declaration of Intention for candidacy, they have been moved to "Did not qualify for ballot".

Candidates who filed a Declaration of Intention are now the only candidates who could even theoretically make the ballot, though it's likely many of them will not. This is who is included in "Declared" now. All declared candidates, no matter how well-sourced otherwise and on top of previous sourcing if necessary, have been backed as well by a link noting the filing of Declaration of Intent. This may be removed if my fellow editors find it unnecessary or redundant.

Titles have been sourced based on best-known qualifications, as well as the occupation listed officially on the ballot. Where "self-described" is applicable in outside sourcing, it is rarely used here, because terms like "advocate" are so vague and general that I have allowed them to stay. If someone describes as an entrepreneur (ex: Douglas Paul Nichols), it seems unnecessary to add that it's self-described. However, we can have a debate about what is standard over this issue. Some candidates do not meet the definitions of their jobs according to Wikipedia (ex: Jesse N. Forte) and therefore will likely keep the self-described. If we choose to use the occupation listed on the ballot, we may, but I've done research to ensure maximum information and minimal spin.

Names of those on the ballot have been selected in some cases, but not when they have a Wikipedia page. Karen Bass is an example of someone who is now listed as "Karen Ruth Bass", while other candidates may have a middle initial (ex: Rick Caruso / "Rick J. Caruso") or a name not featured before in candidacy (ex: Alex Gruenenfelder / "Alex Gruenenfelder Smith"). If a candidate does not have a Wikipedia page, I made the switch, but I left it the same if they do. PickleG13 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos

Hello! I am not super familiar with the photo process on Wikipedia, despite thousands of edits. I have three comments/questions to make here, which someone can hopefully help with: 1) Gina Viola's picture appears to be improperly formatted for the page, as it seems to be in square format. I will try to fix this myself, but I'm not very confident in it. 2) The photos attached to this article appear to be some of the best of Craig Greiwe and Alex Gruenenfelder Smith, but I don't know if they characterize fair use. Both candidates also use a lot of the same photos in news articles, making me thinking there's definitely something for the image gallery. 3) Ramit Varma did one main photo shoot for his candidacy, and the photos for it are arguably good. This article makes me think they could be free use or public domain. What is the consensus here? Thanks so much! PickleG13 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Billy Crystal Chanukah (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)