Talk:2014 Maine gubernatorial election

Maine Mid‑importance

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

LePage "declared"[edit]

LePage AFAIK has not yet made any public statements that he is running for reelection. He has filed papers to form a committee to be able to raise money, according the listed source, but that does not commit one to running. I believe Olympia Snowe had filed papers to raise money but didn't reveal her decision not to run until three weeks before the deadline to commit. Cutler has also filed papers to be able to raise money but has publicly said he hasn't made up his mind yet. I don't think we should state "declared" until he says "I'm running". For now I've just changed it to say he has filed. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has a website to raise money, not a campaign website. Anyone can raise money, it doesn't mean they have made a final decision to commit to a campaign. Olympia Snowe had been raising money right up until she decided not to run. Leaving all that aside, it's not "splitting hairs" to say he hasn't publicly announced he is running again, because he hasn't(unless there is some source I am not aware of). 331dot (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Tiller54 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that he specifically said the other day "Who said I'm running" despite his earlier comments that he would likely run(which with an incumbent is good enough to say "declared", I think) and stated that all options were on the table, including retiring, going back to Marden's or running for Mike Michaud's seat in Congress. He may be joking, but that's been the rumor around the Capitol according to many sources, so I think it's good enough to change it back to "potential" as the anon user did until he firmly states what he is going to do. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud[edit]

According to this an important announcement is imminent from Rep. Michaud- perhaps his final decision to run(though his campaign won't say). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polling post-primary deadline[edit]

The deadline for candidates to get on the primary ballot is the 17th [1] so after that all polling not involving Cutler, Michaud, and LePage should be moved to hypothetical. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements for LePage[edit]

I am keeping my eye out for LePage endorsements (more than likely from business groups or GOP politicians) but I haven't seen evidence of them yet. Feel free to post any that are found. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maine 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maine 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NRA/PVF[edit]

Two edits [2] , [3], to add a citation and link to the NRA's Political Victory Fund (PVF) have been reverted by @331dot on the basis that they would prefer the article to be "kept simple". I find this a bit confusing.

The endorsement of the candidate was made by the NRA Political Victory Fund.
The citations (including the one from nrapvf.org, which 331dot keeps removing) explicitly state "PVF".
The PVF has its own article, which has been judged to meet WP:GNG. It follows that it is WP:DUE to link to that article where relevant.
This is en.wp, not simple.wp and we can probably expect some level of sophistication from our readers in pursuit of accuracy.

If there were no PVF article, then linking to the NRA article would be appropriate. But I would contend that linking an endorsement by a Political Action Committee (PAC) to the specific article for that PAC (rather than to any parent or sponsoring organisation) is not unduly complex or confusing when that PAC is judged notable enough to have its own article. Which the PVF is.

I am unclear why we should not link to the PVF article and instead should link to the main NRA article, despite the more specific article existing. If the view is that "to keep things simple", anything related to the NRA should point to the main article, then what is the point of the PVF article? Do we disagree with its notability? Should we look at rolling it into the main article and deleting it as not-notable? There could hardly be a more appropriate situation in which to link to it - so if not here, then where? Should we do the same for the NRATV and Revolt at Cincinnati articles? That logic would lead (for instance) to the deletion of the Vogue Italia and Vogue France articles, having bundled them in as sections of Vogue (magazine). That would certainly simplify wikipedia, but might not be very helpful to users! Comments appreciated. Hemmers (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing citation for the NRA mentions their support as from the NRA as a whole, while mentioning that its subset, the "Victory Fund", made the donation to LePage. I don't think we need both the NRA as a whole and its subset mentioned. Only mentioning the subset suggests that only that part of the NRA supported LePage. Readers are more likely to be familiar with the NRA as a whole than its political donation arm. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to link to the Victory Fund article, then that could be done as an addition, not a replacement("National Rifle Association, via its Political Victory Fund") we also don't need additional citations. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Bangor Daily News is actually incorrect in their statement that the NRA endorsed LePage. There is no endorsement I can find on nra.org. The endorsement is only reported via nrapvf.org, where they state: "On behalf of our five million members across the country, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to endorse Paul LePage for re-election as Governor of Maine." This is pretty explicit and unequivocal. Whilst the BDN has made an editorial/journalistic decision to abbreviate "NRA-PVF" down to just "NRA" for readability, this does not bind WP - as an encyclopaedic resource - from properly attributing the endorsement. The NRA itself does not directly endorse any candidate - all their political endorsements and donations are made via the PVF. Whilst one might argue "ah, well that's still just the NRA, but one step removed", as I say above:

There is an article for the PVF.
It has met GNG

I can't see why we wouldn't link to it! That being said, although I think linking to the NRA is overlinking and UNDUE, I am quite happy to compromise on the ("National Rifle Association, via its Political Victory Fund") suggested wording.Hemmers (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion 331dot (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]