Talk:2018 Ohio gubernatorial election

importance

I have again placed Constance Gadell-Newton's picture at the top of the page. My name is Joe DeMare and I am Political Director of the Ohio Green Party. Placing the Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian candidates at the top of the entry while relegating the Green to a tiny picture at the bottom shows clear bias in favor of the other three candidates. The argument that the Libertarian "deserves" to be pictured because in one out of 20 polls he met the arbitrary 5% threshold for inclusion ignores the fact that in every poll, the Green and Libertarian numbers have been within the margin of error of each other and within the margin of error of obtaining the arbitrary and unfair 5% non-rule.

However, there is another reason both the Libertarian and Green candidates must be included. That is their importance in the outcome of this election. The Republican and Democrat candidates are in a dead heat. Their poll numbers have consistently been within the margin of error of each other. Any factor that could tip the election one way or the other, such as the candidacy of the Green or Libertarian, is important enough to include in any unbiased, neutral description of this race. To do otherwise would amount to censorship. If November 7 comes and it turns out that the Candidacy of the Libertarian or Green DID make the difference in the outcome, Wikipedia readers would have been left ignorant because of biased presentation of information. Burying pictures and information at the bottom of an article indicates that those pictured or discussed are less important than the ones at the top. In this race, that indication is false. Each of the four candidates are playing a vital role in this election, so each must be represented in the presentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe DeMare (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Joe DeMare (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

polling

in the republican section is a listing for the "We the People Convention". Their website says "Akron, OH – Tom Zawistowski, President of the We the People Convention, today announced the result of the first Conservative Coalition Tracking Poll which measures the current position of the four announced Republican Governor candidates among TEA Party and Liberty Group Activist, Social Conservatives, Gun Owners, Fiscal Conservatives, and Trump Democrats who formed the coalition that carried Ohio for Donald Trump in last year’s Presidential Election. The We the People Convention held a “Meet the Republican Governor Candidates” event outside of Columbus on June 24th where all four candidates were given the opportunity to address nearly 300 top activist in the state for an hour each."

The results listed are for those 300 activists who showed up at this meeting. Is this really a "Poll"? Roseohioresident (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up @roseohioresident Dael4 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Dael4 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Equal Face Time for All Certified General Candidates?

What is the policy for presenting photos of candidates? Ohio Board of Elections has certified three candidates for the general election, but only two have photos shown. 2607:FCC8:9F44:5900:149B:B7AF:9DD3:40DB (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason not to add a photo of the all listed candidates. If you have a photo that meets Wikipedia's licensing criteria, please add it. I've sent an email to said Green Party candidate with instructions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I received an appropriately licensed photo from the Ohio Green Party and uploaded it this morning. The author of the photo emailed Wikimedia Commons with his permission in accordance with Commons:OTRS.

A word of warning. The previous photo was removed after a deletion proposal [1] by User:Roseohioresident. This user correctly stated that photo was featured ohiogreens.com, which at the bottom of the website states "Copyright © 1999-2018, Green Party of Ohio."

The evidence was dubious, but Wikipedia Commons is in the difficult position of needing abundant evidence that a photo is licensed for reuse. For future photos, I advised the Ohio Green Party to either produce photos that are used nowhere else, or to prominently display the correct license alongside the photo on their website. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on featuring photos of all certified candidates

There appears to be a user who is unhappy with Gadell-Newton's photo.

First 47.151.23.7 reverted the photo without explanation. With apparent WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page I restored the photo stating that Gadell-Newton is a ballot candidate. User:Kart2401real again removed the photo, stating "Ohio's Green Party did not get at least 5% in last election." These appear to be the same user, or users working together on a project? They have an almost overwhelming edit history overlap.

As I understand it, the bar for featuring a candidate's photo on Wikipedia is low. As reference, United States presidential election, 2020 features the photos of a number of speculative candidates, years ahead of the election, many of whom are merely "declared". A recent RfC requesting more strict rules or cleanup received 11 responses, with 8 opposed. Most of the candidates listed in that page did not get 5% of the vote. That is not the only example, just the most recent one I have come across.

Are there any other reasons this photo should not be featured?

@Kart2401real: Requesting comment.

--Elephanthunter (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on this issue

I do not believe we are in an era where legitimate candidates have to fight to be featured on wikipedia page about their general election info. This is the democratic process established by the United States, If anything Wikipedia should hold a higher standard. There are other actors here.

@Mélencron: Requesting comment. @Richelieu94: Requesting comment. @Nevermore27: Requesting comment.

Dael4 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

References

After a bit more research, it appears there is an not-quite-agreed-upon "5% rule" (see discussion at United States Senate election in Illinois.) Some people believe a candidate's party must receive at least 5% of the vote in the previous election to appear in the header infobox. Or get over 5% in pre-election polling.

If there is disagreement about including a photo of Gadell-Newton in the header infobox, I suggest we place the photo further down the page. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of any Infobox is to provide important summary information. What will be on the ballot (the candidates) is the most important piece of information relating to an upcoming election. Three (3) candidates will be on the ballot, and therefore three (3) should be listed along with party and running mate - same as on the ballot. The question of photos is separate. Some primary elections attract so many candidates the number of photos could overwhelm the article and take far too long to load. Most general elections have few candidates for each election on the ballot. If Wikipedia allowed separate articles for each of these candidates, one could make the argument that photos could appear in those. Since Wikipedia doesn't do this, and because candidate photos are universally considered to be useful to people who use Wikipedia, I would say they should be included in the election infobox. If a state doesn't require 5% polling to be on the ballot, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have such an arbitrary rule. I think Wikipedia should defer to each state. If a candidate is important enough to be on their ballot, that candidate should be in the infobox. 2600:1008:B162:7796:A8CD:CBB1:8AAB:C1D5 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What the editors of Wikipedia have to ask themselves is, "What is the difference between setting arbitrary thresholds which are too high for minor parties to pass and censorship?" I submit there is no difference. This is a simple case of political repression. Many polls show that most Americans want to have an alternative to the two Party system. Greens and other minor Parties have done the hard work of creating those Parties, only to be denied access to the public commons time and time again. People turn to information sources like Wikipedia, searching for unbiased information. Putting large pictures of the candidates from two Parties at the top of the page, while relegating the Green Party candidate to a tiny picture near the bottom of the entry shows clear bias, a clear preference of the editors for two Parties over a third. Full disclosure, I am the Political Director for the Ohio Green Party, but these comments apply to all minor party exclusions. Joe DeMare (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Requesting comment. Equal Facetime?

Yea well Don't delete because you can help add Travis Irvine Sir if you really want to do something constructive.

@Nevermore27: Requesting comment. put them in Dael4 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you putting Gadell-Newton in the infobox but not the Libertarian nominee? Also, it looks like you're edit-warring. Nevermore27 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#ArbCom_wants_there_to_be_an_RfC_and_the_drafting_of_infobox_inclusion_criteria

@Dael4: You have yet to explain why one minor party's inclusion is merited over another. There appear to be four ballot-qualified candidates, why are you only fighting for the Green Party. Also, seriously, stop your edit warring. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I could find nothing on the Ohio SOS website for the general election ballots, but I did find a county example which did not show the Libertarian candidate: http://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/public/documents/PDF/5D964242-E16D-73CB-B828371456C4CC70.pdf 2600:1008:B162:7796:A8CD:CBB1:8AAB:C1D5 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 July 2018 (1)

Please add these links directly under External links:

• Candidates at Vote Smart
• Candidates at Ballotpedia 174.198.5.165 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. No dissent in this section for over 24 hours. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 July 2018 (2)

This is a democratically elected candidate in Ohio under the rules of the state. There is no reason why Constance Gadell-Newton's candidacy should be removed from this page. I have been defending american democratic values on this page. And have been under attack every since placing her there. Dael4 (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors ) Dael4 (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of the democratic process here in Ohio and throughout the United States against existing major party anarchy, hopefully setting a new standard for wikipedia, we request that Constance Gadell-Newton's Photo and info box data be put back in place and also Ohio Libertarian Gov. candidate, Travis Irvine be placed/inserted there. Both are legitimate candidates in the state of Ohio. Dael4 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally no one is suggesting removing Gadell-Newton's "candidacy". She is a ballot-qualified candidate and is given adequate coverage on the page. The question is whether to elevate her importance to be included in the infobox, given equal footing to the two major parties in this country. There is quite a bit of evidence that you're in the minority here. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Until the number of candidates starts to negatively impact formatting, it's fair to display the photos of everyone on the ballot. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the edit warring and battleground mentality that has characterized this dispute, but I agree that the other candidates should be in the infobox. Bradv 04:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As I have said before importance is proportional to the venue. There are candidates. Present them. Exclusion is not an option. Importance is mutually exclusive in the not having them there screams unequal treatment and prejudice as to effective politicking. Polls say many people value this parties principals. Dael4 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally am not that invested in the idea of including or removing minor candidates in the infobox, but this has been litigated SO. MANY. TIMES. and we always seem to come back around to the idea that minor parties only merit inclusion once they hit 5% in at least one poll. There is also a standard that is pretty ironclad to only include candidates achieving 5% post-election, so it seems logical to apply that to the infoboxes pre-election as well. What I would really like is one big vote, perhaps in the Elections Wikiproject, including as many active politics editors as possible, to settle this once and for all. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I argued with Nevermore27 over this point eons ago. It's just what it is. I personally think that unless there are more than 4 candidates on the actual ballot, that all candidates should be listed in the InfoBox. It doesn't screw up the format and I think it's good to inform people of their options. As noted elsewhere in this chat, I'm the campaign manager for Irvine, apparently entitled to be listed, and I don't mind having Gadell-Newton listed as well. I think it's good for the process, and good for neutrality, to list the top-4, or maybe even the top-6 (in races where there are that many) ballot-listed candidates, so long as it doesn't break the formatting of the page. Just my $0.02 on the matter. Bnewmark42 (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Back in May I posted on my talk page, "Editing the Ohio gubernatorial elections 2018 and considering the https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1 RFC 1 third parties, Wikipedia has become very undemocratic. Basing inclusion on media coverage and financial backing and not on actual election results. Third party should be allowed regardless because they are on the ballot here. Make no mistake Wikipedia is used basically as a promotional tool by the Democrats and the Republicans and if they cannot include third parties then it proves the lack of democratic action therein Dael4 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Dael4 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. You're not arguing in good faith anymore (if you ever were). Nevermore27 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't about fairness or democracy, but rather about coverage in reliable sources. Do newspapers, polls, and other independent sources mention the Green candidate? If most source devote the majority of their coverage to the Democratic and Republican candidates, then so should we. Choosing to elevate our coverage of a candidate to the same level of the others for the sake of fairness would be violating NPOV and due weight. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We? Coverage is not the issue. These people are on the ballot. Please understand the word Sycophant. Dael4 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me? I use "we" as in, "us wikipedia editors, who are bound by wikipedia's policies, such as NPOV and RS". And yes, I do understand these people are on the ballot. I also understand that the mainstream media is essentially ignoring the third-party candidates, as is usual for almost every political race in the US. And since we're supposed to take our cues from mainstream sources, treating the Green or Libertarian candidates the same as the two candidates who are actually being discussed in the news would be violating policy. Coverage is the issue, as it is for every topic and article on wikipedia. Also, I don't know whose sycophant I'm supposed to be. Am I somehow in the pockets of both the Ohio State Republican and Democratic Parties? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Or perhaps you mean the mainstream media is in the pockets of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Unfortunately, even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that articles are supposed to be based on reliable, secondary sources, even if they're part of some grand conspiracy to cover up third party candidates and prevent the people from hearing the truth. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the simplest solution is to not have any infobox at all until after the election; it will be easy to only include those candidates who personally received >5% of the vote at that time. Beyond that; the public polling, political analysis, and results of previous elections suggest that DeWine and Cordray are the only candidates likely to receive even 5% of the vote, much less have a chance at winning. While there's a philosophical argument that all candidates in pending elections should be treated equally, that is not currently Wikipedia policy, and without a wider consensus should not be enforced as policy here. If we were to do that, all candidates should be listed, including Libertarian Travis Irvine, and Independent Collin Hill [2] [3]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• What is wikipedia current policy? power~enwiki? I am thinking of inclusiveness as one of them. Why shouldn't it be a current policy here? It is not consensus that should rule, that is too simplistic. Inclusiveness should also be considered for fuller coverage. It almost sounds like including third or independent parties as something that shouldn't happen? This, as an encyclopedia, should have all of the situation of the elections in Ohio. I have noticed some who have colluded to purposely deny ANY third party access on other Wiki pages. If you look you will find it. It is happening as we speak. To me it is deeply disturbing and should be to every wikipedian. bradv quoted me that wikipedia is not a democracy but I keep getting quoted info about polls as a basis for publishing. Democracy as in hearing people out is what's important. Publish the facts. So and so is running. Good! There are 5 candidates in Ohio. With only two pictures of them seems as though someone is playing favorites. Not a Democracy?, then no polls should be cited as an inclusive principle. Either way the poll argument is a fail, in that full information on THE candidates is not available. Dael4 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Dael4: You have opened an RfC. What is the brief neutral statement that we are being requested to comment on? Observe how it appears at the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The purpose of any Infobox is to provide important summary information. What will be on the ballot (the candidates) is the most important piece of information relating to an upcoming election. Three (3) candidates will be on the ballot, and therefore three (3) should be listed along with party and running mate - same as on the ballot. The question of photos is separate. Some primary elections attract so many candidates the number of photos could overwhelm the article and take far too long to load. Most general elections have few candidates for each election on the ballot. If Wikipedia allowed separate articles for each of these candidates, one could make the argument that photos could appear in those. Since Wikipedia doesn't do this, and because candidate photos are universally considered to be useful to people who use Wikipedia, I would say they should be included in the election infobox. If a state doesn't require 5% polling to be on the ballot, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have such an arbitrary rule. I think Wikipedia should defer to each state. If a candidate is important enough to be on their ballot, that candidate should be in the infobox. 2600:1008:B162:7796:A8CD:CBB1:8AAB:C1D5 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Using Breitbart as a source

Bb is an unreliable source with no longstanding reputation for responsible editorial oversight or fact checking. (See also this RfC.) Bb should not be used as a source for anything other than the opinion of Bb. GMG^talk 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The specific section regarding polls shared with the site within the RfC, however, was inconclusive – this is the case with Gravis Marketing, Atlantic Media & Research, and America First Action polls, all of which have been shared exclusively with the site in the past and are conducted by legitimate pollsters – yes, there are actually fabricated polls (e.g. People's Pundit Daily polls, now known as the "Big Data Poll", which were repeatedly added – and which I removed – from this page), but there's no evidence that is the case here. Mélencron (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If the only source for the poll is Breitbart, then there is no reason to believe they would have exercised professional journalistic oversight if it were the case. GMG^talk 12:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree more so on the basis that the distribution of certain poll results is sometimes restricted exclusively to publications at the request of pollsters – local television stations, in particular, have a tendency to do this, with more recent examples being the SurveyUSA polls of races in California and Minnesota whose results are released exclusively to them alone and generally not distributed beyond them. If the veracity of the pollster is not disputed, as in this case, then I don't think that it should matter, and in my view the RfC didn't settle this conclusion; in particular, while Breitbart is clearly an unreliable source of reporting on practically every issue, they primarily serve as the messenger of polling rather than those who actually conducted them – even in the case of the Gravis Marketing polls, the extent of their involvement was in paying for them to be conducted – not to fabricate their results. That America First Action disclosed their results to them is typical behavior of groups and candidates sharing internal polls, and I don't think it should be surprising – or call into question their veracity – that a group called "America First" would be inclined to share their results with a site like Breitbart (just as GBA Strategies shared, say, the results of a poll from a Democratic super PAC in a competitive Washington congressional district were shared to a liberal blog based in the state, or how Libertarian polls in New Mexico have been shared with a Libertarian blog in New Mexico – neither of which are reliable sources on their own but cases in which the publisher of the poll serves purely as the messenger of a few numbers rather than creating favorable numbers out of thin air). As a comparable case: the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday publish polls which are used in Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election – the veracity of these polls is not in question merely by merit of their sponsor or publisher. Mélencron (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the only method we have for knowing whether the America First methodology is industry standard, or if there are serious flaws that may affect the results is that it's been vetted by Bb, which is essentially nothing. It's actually less than nothing, because there is every reason to believe that they would not just passively fail to fact check the methodology, but that they would actively disregard it in favor of promoting results that fit their narrative, even if they had reason to believe they had serious problems, or were outright fabrications. That's not a reliable source. If there are similar issues in other articles, then they too should be removed, and replaced with more reliable sources if possible. GMG^talk 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)  

I'll concede the point specifically in this case – in which I actually reached out to attempt to verify this poll was real (and didn't receive a response) because of my own suspicions about it – but not about the broader point, which is that the sourcing of polling can sometimes be unusual without detracting from the veracity of the polls themselves – usually my expectation for any questionable polls is that a memo/copy of the original poll is provided, which did not happen in this case. Mélencron (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Including Green Party candidates in Infobox

On 15 October 2018, User:Mélencron removed the Green Party and its candidates from the Infobox, explaining in his edit summary, "only Irvine is polling at least 5%." I have restored that content pending consensus, and request clarification of two distinct issues raised by Mélencron.

• First, he refers to Libertarian nominee Travis Irvine as "polling at least 5%," yet among the 25 polls listed in subsection 5.5, Irvine is shown with at least 5% in only one; in 20 of the other polls, he registers no percentage at all. Why does Mélencron rely on a single poll to justify Irvine's inclusion in the Infobox?
• Second, where does this 5% threshold even come from? There has been discussion on various talk pages (including this one) about 5%, but none that I've seen cites a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay on this point. I'm not asking about whether Ohio or any other state has a 5% rule relating to placing candidates on the ballot. Rather, I'm seeking an expression of Wikipedia community-wide consensus that 5% should apply to {Infobox election}.
  

I urge Mélencron to let stand the Infobox including the Green Party and its nominees until consensus forms for their removal on solid grounds of specific Wikipedia policy. KalHolmann (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a "Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay" because it's a consensus, like lots of conventions on Wikipedia. And it's a consensus that's been discussed and upheld for years, since at least the 2008 presidential election, to the best of my memory. While I personally have a low threshold on the 5% "rule" (i.e. it only requires reaching 5% in one poll), some prefer to use an average, which is fine by me if we come to that consensus, which would be Irvine would be removed from the infobox. There is, however, no consensus to include everyone in the infobox just because they're on the ballot. So if you want to remove Irvine, I think that's defensible. But there is no rational basis to include Gadell-Newton. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: You contend the unwritten 5% rule has been discussed and upheld by consensus for years, and that "it only requires reaching 5% in one poll." However, you also indicate we might reach a different consensus (using an average of polls) for Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018. If so, wouldn't we be violating the consensus that you claim has been discussed and upheld by consensus for years? KalHolmann (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Like I said, 5% in one poll is only my personal standard, since I don't want there to be such a high bar for third parties to gain entry to the infobox. Moving to an average would be a slightly different direction, but it wouldn't violate the consensus as such. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Thank you for clarifying. If 5% in one poll is only your personal standard, please advise: what is the standard reached by discussion and upheld by consensus for years? KalHolmann (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen these fights repeatedly over the years, and I've even been involved with them in the past. I remember the 5% rule from those past arguments. Honestly, I don't even care anymore other than I received a message from someone that Irvine's picture had disappeared. I personally believe the top-4 candidates should always be in the infographic, because it's good that people know they have more than two choices, and it doesn't harm the formatting of the page. In this case, there are 4 ballot-listed candidates. Does it hurt this article to list all 4? I know there are standards and rules, but at some point the origin of these rules needs to be considered as well. Not to go all Godwin or whatever, but there's been consensus within certain communities to do some pretty nasty stuff in our history. At some point, common sense needs to come into play. There are 4 ballot-listed candidates, and listing 4 people doesn't break the page. I know these discussion get heated, like everything political, but I'd suggest that Wikipedia can rise above all the insanity and do what makes sense, from a standpoint of presenting information and readability. Bnewmark42 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not including minor parties in the infobox doesn't prevent anybody from scrolling down to see everyone that is on the ballot. It's not suppressing anything. Wikipedia isn't here to show everybody the world as it should be, only what it is. In the United States we have a system that naturally gravitates towards two major parties, whether we like it or not (and regardless of what my activity on this website may imply, I would prefer more than two viable parties), and trying to promote other parties as "giving people choices" is not neutral. That's the job of the parties themselves, not this website. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Please help me understand. Are you now saying that including Green Party nominees in the Infobox violates WP:NPOV? KalHolmann (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If they're not polling at least at 5%, yes, that's my belief. Others can and will say that neutrality would be including everybody, and there's an argument there certainly, but I disagree. And I'm not the only one, which is why this consensus has held. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Oh, I see. It all gets back to the invisible 5% rule that has attained the level of unassailable myth at Wikipedia. Good call. KalHolmann (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

By mocking "invisible rules" you are mocking the thing that keeps Wikipedia going, i.e. consensus. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: When I see a clear consensus, of course I respect it—and abide by it. But there is no such consensus on this page favoring exclusion of Green Party nominees from the Infobox. Nor is there any legitimate foundation for your personal 5% rule, which you arbitrarily wield to turn WP:NPOV on its head. KalHolmann (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Political pages are part of a unit, e.g. all gubernatorial, senatorial and House elections pages should be subject to the same guidelines instead of each page being different based on the whims of those who target a single page to assert their vision. It suits your purpose to cast me as an individual villain, but I'm just acting to try and preserve consensus. If you think any application of a 5% "rule" should be an average of polls, that's perfectly fine with me, in which case the solution is to remove Irvine, the Libertarian, not add the Green candidate. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the Green Party candidate even being polled? The polling table doesn't include her. Why should we include a candidate that isn't being polled in the infobox? I don't know that we should include the Libertarian candidate based on his low polling numbers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As noted above, I have a conflict of interest. But I also do polling, and I'm passionate about polls being done correctly. And since you mentioned the polling thresholds, I just had to chime in on this. The majority of the polls conducted in this race have been somewhere between flawed and garbage. Many ask opinions about the D and R candidates, ask about a theoretical race between just those two, and then, maybe, ask about the actual 4-way race. This creates bias. Many of our supporters have been hanging up on polls that only present the "two candidate" theoretical race, so they never even get to the question about the 4-way race that this actually is. You all can do whatever you want; most people use ballotpedia and other sources to get their information about political races anyway. But I had to note that the polls have been flawed in their methodology, which is unfortunate. And since I have the aforementioned conflict of interest, I can't run a poll with my own company without it being labeled as a COI, even if I did it 100% correctly and made all of the raw data public. It's definitely frustrating. Bnewmark42 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bnewmark42: I realize you mentioned this below, but out of an abundance of caution I would recommend you disclose your relationship with the Irvine campaign in every comment you make on this talk page. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Okay. I haven't done much in the way of wikipedia edits in a while, and usually I do it anonymously anyway, and just to improve articles. I just try to make sure things are technically correct. But I get why it's important to disclose it, especially since the political articles get nasty. (Note: I have a COI as the campaign manager for Irvine's campaign. :) ) Bnewmark42 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Partisanship by Nevermore27

Since 07:14, 17 October 2018 User:Nevermore27 has made four identical reversions in the article space to exclude Green Party nominees from the Infobox. At this talk page, he has declared "there is no rational basis to include" Green Party gubernatorial nominee Constance Gadell-Newton. It is pertinent, I believe, to note that on his user page Nevermore27 has since 6 December 2017 actively supported Gadell-Newton's opponent, Democratic Party gubernatorial nominee Richard Cordray. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I urge Nevermore27 to recuse himself from further edits to Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018. KalHolmann (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

My personal views on politics are entirely separate from this issue, and you're resorting to desperate measures to try and remove me from the equation. Nice try. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Irvine picture

Hi. I'm the campaign manager for the Irvine campaign. The photo we would like to have used is available in multiple places. I cannot upload because I don't have 10 edits. I usually just edit things anonymously even though I've had this account for eons. In any case, if someone would like to have a free-to-use (no license restriction) picture of Travis for the Wikipedia page, please hit me up at https://irvineforohio.com/contact and I'll respond with that picture. Thank you.

Sorry I forgot to datestamp this before. Bnewmark42 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Bnewmark42 COI

I have placed {Connected contributor} at the top of this page in accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which allows another editor to add that template when the connected contributor does not. At 22:01, 17 October 2018, User:Bnewmark42 revised the article space. Forty-one minutes later, in an unsigned comment on this talk page, he stated, "I'm the campaign manager for the Irvine campaign." Forty minutes thereafter, still without having formally disclosed his COI, he again revised the article space. KalHolmann (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Look at the content of the edit itself. Irvine was nominated (he is not in a "declared" status) and that edit was made. You can reference that with a google search for "ohio libertarian nominates" (here's the first one I found: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/elections/ohio-libertarians-tap-candidates-for-statewide-office/95-587541855 ). Further, the other two declared candidates withdrew from the nomination process at the Libertarian Party of Ohio State Convention. I was simply correcting the status of the candidate, and adding additional information about other candidates to that section to add more detail. Further, I obviously wasn't trying to hide any sort of involvement. I didn't have to identify myself - I chose to do so. So, whatever. --Bnewmark42 —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohio Map

Why does that map have incorrect country lines? Take a look at Athens for example in this accurate map. - Nusent 18:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RMD-Official-Headshot (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)