![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can only accomplish so much from my phone, so it would be too much trouble right now to make this any easier. You may just have to do a little legwork yourself. Based upon sporadic checks of the websites of APOC and the Division of Elections, their lists of gubernatorial candidates aren't exactly in agreement with the one which has developed in this article. The sourcing here has focused nearly exclusively on news stories. Meanwhile, other candidates are out there who are actually recognized by the state as candidates, either for fundraising purposes or who have been certified for the ballot. This information will have to be included eventually, so why give the appearance that the purpose of these election articles is to parrot the press releases of the monied candidates? After all, that's what a lot of the news coverage boils down to. Since the process of being a candidate involves filing paperwork with two separate entities for two different purposes, not having that straight further clouds whether the list of candidates is just another WP invention. Yet, I see this same approach in one election article after another. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't limited strictly to this article. It appears to be the result of a certain few editors who actively edit election articles, all the while not taking the time to figure out that certain facts related to elections in this state aren't going to be the same as in other states, which appears to be their objective.
Specifically, there is no Constitution Party primary. For that matter, there is no Democratic primary. The Alaska Division of Elections lists the political parties recognized in Alaska right here. These are the parties who will appear on the primary ballot. Any others must file a nominating petition to appear on the general election ballot; media coverage of Bill Walker's campaign indicates that about 3,000 signatures apiece are required for gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates. The primary election system in Alaska consists of one ballot in which Republican candidates are listed, and another ballot which lists the candidates of the other three recognized parties (the Democrats, Libertarians and the Alaskan Independence Party). It's been this way for approximately a decade.
Along similar lines, the active editors appear to be cherry-picking sources in order to only mention the Democratic and Republican parties, in spite of their being two other recognized parties in Alaska, and to only mention monied candidates, despite the existence of other candidates who have actually filed paperwork and are not strictly speculative candidates such as Ethan Berkowitz. The coverage found in these cherry-picked sources amounts to a parroting of the candidates' press releases and press conferences. Only including certain information about certain candidates backed by certain sources means that Wikipedia has become one more website where the candidates have "bought" themselves exposure.
It just so happens that right now that the only known candidates are Democratic or Republican. Based on past history, if any other candidates appear on the primary ballot, the regular editors will find a way to ignore them. Don Wright has run for governor consecutively in every election from 1974 to 2010. Common sense tells me that unless a source appears which expressly states that he's not running, that Wright can once again be considered a candidate. As he's 84 years old and has been running for office more or less constantly since the late 1960s, I would figure that it would take death or near-death to change that. We can't mention him because he's not as savvy at playing the media as the other candidates are? That's the take I've developed from seeing the evolution of the article thus far.
There are tons of other issues with this article, but I'm on my way to perform paying work right now. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This reveals a slew of contradictions. The APOC website and the Division of Elections website aren't "someone's personal website or blog". Moreover, they list the candidates who have actually filed paperwork for the office. Unless I'm misreading notability guidelines, they state that something which is notable within the context of an article's subject can still be mentioned in that article. A person who has been certified for a spot on the ballot in this election by the Division of Elections is most certainly notable within the context of the subject. "Notability", as you're selectively applying it here, means spending money, or receiving press coverage not so much in response to notable happenings but to the campaign's own efforts to attract attention (e.g. press releases and/or press conferences). The lists on the aforementioned two websites don't include Ethan Berkowitz, who hasn't filed any paperwork whatsoever and whose website refers strictly to his 2010 campaign. If the Democratic central committee endorsed Byron Mallott ten months before the election, that means that Berkowitz simply isn't running, as Harry Crawford's primary challenge to Bettye Davis last year proved that the Democratic establishment takes a dim view towards members who rock the boat. That may also qualify as original research, however, as I don't expect some dumbshit cub reporter to be willing or able to arrive at that conclusion, even if anyone who is actually following this race has already figured it out. Still, in spite of all that, there is a concerted effort to include Berkowitz's name in the article based upon some (no doubt friendly) journalist's farting in the wind. Re-read the above quoted text, then understand there's a reason why I bring up comparisons to Levi Johnston and his "mayoral candidacy". All Johnston did was hire a high-powered lawyer and issue a few press releases through said lawyer. He filed the bare minimum of paperwork with APOC. That, of course, was a necessity: if he were to have made public statements to the effect that he was running for office without having filed that paperwork first, he risked being in violation of state statutes. Yet, that APOC paperwork is entirely separate from filing a declaration of candidacy with the Wasilla city clerk. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman ran two stories in less than a week about that very item. In the first story, Johnston offered no comment about whether he was actually going to file a declaration of candidacy prior to the deadline. In the second story, the deadline had passed and there was no word whatsoever from Johnston, either physically or verbally. Funny how this was completely ignored in favor of "sources" from such august authorities on Alaska elections as Us Weekly, Entertainment Tonight and Radar Online. Even worse, the Palinistas chose to rather disingenuously portray the difference between filing financial disclosure paperwork and filing a declaration of candidacy as being little more than a "first round" and a "second round" in the election. In other words, the same illogic based upon cherry-picking that I see here, not to mention countless other election articles. Something tells me that discussing this with WP:WPE&R is the next step, as this crap has obviously been going on for years.Filing to run doesn't make a candidate notable. Only candidates with coverage from a reliable news source are included. If the only source available is someone's personal website or blog saying "I'm running", they're not included.
Sorry, I had to go back to the real world for a while, so this will be short. There is a local legislator who encouraged people to visit his Wikipedia article in his constituent newsletters. Once the article evolved beyond a hagiography written by his legislative aide, he quit mentioning it. That's a microcosm of how politicians view Wikipedia. I have no reason whatsoever to play along with that. You're promoting the same "there are only a finite number of reliable sources in existence" crap that others follow to create content which anyone with enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire can drive a Mack truck through. It's not just you and this article. Just like two years ago, when certain editors used the fact that someone's mental masturbation about Joe Miller challenging Don Young was published by Roll Call. Meanwhile, anyone actually living in Alaska who follows reliable sources here rather than D.C. fanboy sources (shades of the Gravina Island Bridge fiasco, which occupied more space on here than this disucssion ever will) knew it was all bullshit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it's easy to brush off legitimate concerns about WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL if you have all the time in the world to do so. I don't. However, this is just too glaring to let go. No naming names, but a prominent Democrat once said to me "You know, it's a shame that we really don't have any candidates and that Parnell is going to breeze to another term". That was over two years ago. This week, the lemmings who rely upon the corporate media for what to think and believe are finally catching up to that reality. So the Alaska Democratic Party central committee has abandoned the ticket that 40,000-some-odd voters selected in order for the AFL-CIO to endorse someone in this race. That much is fact. Today, the headline in the Alaska Dispatch News reads "Mallott, Walker discuss joining forces". The headline in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reads "Walker and Mallott may team up". However, I look at my watchlist and see a series of edits which portray this ticket as an absolute done deal and on the ballot, via cherry-picking some other story. Here's a pertinent quote from that story:
"But the unity ticket is still a ways from being settled. Tuesday is the deadline for changes to the Nov. 4 ballot, and there’s nothing in law that provides for succession when a candidate for lieutenant governor resigns from a ticket put on the ballot by petition.
In 2006, when then-independent Andrew Halcro lost his running mate, it took a special emergency order by Lt. Gov. Loren Leman to authorize Halcro to name a replacement. Leman’s order expired in 2007, but supporters of the Walker-Mallott ticket say they expect Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell to follow the precedent. If not, a court battle will likely follow.
(To back this up, all I could find under state law is as follows: AS 15.25.140 states "Candidates not representing a political party are nominated by petition", while AS 15.25.200 states "If a candidate nominated by petition dies or withdraws after the petition has been filed and 48 days or more before the general election, the director may not place the name of the candidate on the general election ballot".)
That story confirms what I just stated earlier: the only fact we have to go on is that the ADP central committee first anointed, then abandoned, Byron Mallott pretty much by fiat; screw what the voters think. Little wonder I see Disco Ray front and center in the photo accompanying that story, as his contempt for the primary election process has been well-stated. A large part of why the "Republican Moderate" (*cough, cough*) Party doesn't exist anymore is because no one in their right mind is going to run for office with that party label under the prevailing laws and be threatened with a lawsuit because they did not seek the party chair's permission (Metcalfe's own statement, in a 2004 panel discussion at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. No doubt he said the same to plenty of other people in other public forums.). That sort of mentality also plays a large role in explaining why the AIP doesn't have a ticket in this election, aside from the obvious non-availability of Don Wright to run yet again. Speaking of Wright, this story states: "Wright unsuccessfully ran for governor numerous times under various party affiliations. Years ago, he said he would continue to seek office until he won or died." Are you really expecting anyone to believe that either a) this was the first time that such a statement appeared in a reliable source or b) that such a statement didn't constitute a potential candidacy for this election? He died after the filing deadline, and no indication of illness or incapacity appeared in a reliable source prior to the announcement of his death. We're talking about someone who had been making headlines since the 1960s, regardless of whether Google will reveal that to you.
Anyway, back to the core issue: this page on the Division of Elections website still lists a Walker/Fleener ticket as of the time I write this, while the article currently attempts to portray a Walker/Mallott ticket as fact strictly based upon cherry-picking sources, rather than a pending merger of their respective campaigns. Which really gets down to the heart of why I've bothered with all of this: instead of a balanced, neutral and (most importantly) FACTUALLY ACCURATE article, all I've seen so far is one monstrous corporate media/pollster/political party POV fest. Never mind that I can very well just go to THEIR WEBSITES (Something logically follows that statement, but it would be too easy for people to throw up the WP:NPA flag were I to say it. For the nicey-nice version, think of Bill Engvall and " Here's Your Sign".) instead of seeing that same POV mirrored on here. But such is tantamount to gaming the system, I suppose; there's no other reasonable explanation. Of course, two can play that game. You'll have to keep throwing up that placeholder image to prop up your candidate, because you can't have any of the numerous photos I've taken of Walker and Mallott this summer. I may donate them to Ballotpedia, as they seem willing to provide balanced, neutral and factually accurate coverage. If I do such a thing, they'll be licensed in such a manner where you can't touch them. Have a nice day. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Alaska gubernatorial election, 2014. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)