Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Maine

Infobox vote totals

@Namiba: Please update the whole infobox if you want to update the vote totals. Adding a local reference while leaving the NYT reference—and not updating the percentage reported in—is very messy. And I think we need some consistency in the sources we use for Senate elections across the country. We shouldn't be using a hodgepodge of local sources. I personally don't care if Savage is in the infobox or not; that's between you and Muboshgu. Also, me reverting you adding votes without a reference is not edit-warring. Citations are obviously required for this. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Namiba, you are edit warring. The results are unofficial and there is no way to know if Savage hit 5%. Self-revert now please. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I have updated the totals with the best information available. I have not engaged in any edit-warring whatsoever. The infobox should include the most up to date information available and I've yet to see a convincing argument here for bad numbers.--User:Namiba 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, having two sources cited at the same time for the results is absurd. Also, you didn't even add a reference for your first change to the vote count. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right. We should remove the New York Times, which is old information. I am being accused of edit-warring so I don't want to go and fix it lest I am accused once again.--User:Namiba 23:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, I used the NYT because it's what we're using at 2020 United States presidential election and other pages, and I think some consistency is good for that. The NYT says these results were updated 54 minutes ago, so I don't think they're "old information". Also, your source has Savage at 4.9%, yet you've entered 5.0%, which is incorrect. Regardless, I'm on your side on her being included. I think since she qualified before the election, she can be kept in until we have full results showing her below 5%. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Gideon picture is missing

Not sure what happened there. It's missing on older revisions too, so maybe something happened to the source image. It loads a "Blank svg image".

--100.4.147.106 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeated efforts to add an image of Speaker Gideon have been deleted because of licensing issues. If you have an image of her with a license that allows its use on Wikipedia, you can read about uploading it at WP:UPIMAGE. Note that the most likely way you would able to do that would be to take an image of her yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FBI Investigation against Collins

Is this worth mentioning now or shall we wait until the FBI itself or Susan Collins issue a statement?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/susan-collins-investigation/ FCE64 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Collins is not being investigated, the donor at issue is. Her campaign has denied any knowledge. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Savage should be removed from the infobox

Given Namiba reverted without any real explanation - Savage should be removed from the infobox. She was only recently added (without any explanation) less than a month ago. Under the five percent rule, which is longstanding policy for American politics articles, you have to receive 5% to be in the infobox; Savage only won 4.95%, which is less than 5% the infobox incorrectly reports her as receiving. Moreover, she didn't have any impact on the race, as the margin of victory for Collins (8.6%) was far larger than Savage's 4.95%. There's not any real argument to contravene policy and include her here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No real impact? Do you really believe that? Politico: "The independent candidate who could decide the Senate" would disagree. Savage was treated as a serious candidate throughout the election. Moreover, if we round 4.95%, which we need to do, it rounds to 5.0%.--User:Namiba 16:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be quibbling over .05 percent of the vote, or for that matter anything greater than .5%. She should be included. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Being “treated as a serious candidate” isn’t the standard for being in an info box. It’s hitting 5%, and she didn’t do that, nor did her vote share have any impact on the result. Toa Nidhiki05 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's the standard then Sara Gideon should be removed from the box, since her vote share didn't affect the result. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard is to include the top two candidates, regardless of vote share. Beyond that, candidates need to have received 5% of the vote - which Savage did not receive. Her vote total was not larger than Collins's margin of victory. There's no real argument to violate decades-long consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said I don't think we should quibble over .05% of the vote. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not quibbling. The standard is 5%, and she didn't get it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a hyperinterpretation of the standard(which is not a policy) that we should not get wrapped up in. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a hyperinterpretation. The standard is 5%. I've never seen a page with a candidate with less than 5% get here unless it was extremely close, and even then you don't see it. Heck, I've seen candidates get 4.99% and not get on (2020 United States Senate election in Kansas. If the standard is 5%, that's the standard - not 4.95%. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

When the standard does not allow for common sense things like rounding there's something wrong. I see nothing that says rounding is not permitted under any circumstances whatsoever written in stone for all time. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether rounding here is common sense is entirely debatable. Is it the 5% rule, or the almost 5% rule? This might be genuinely useful to know for other articles, since there are other ones where candidates have received 4.95% of the vote or greater and these pretty uniformly don't include them in infoboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on the actual number of votes. A half of a tenth of a percentage point here is only about 4000 votes. That would be a greater number in Kansas or California. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the discussions in the summary you linked to states "as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus." Determining that .05% is close enough is what we are discussing here. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those sorts of exceptions tend to be candidates that were clearly notable, dropped out, or that had an actual impact on the election - and even then, they're quite rare. I've never seen "4.95% is okay because if you round up it's 5%" before. If you're suggesting an RfC, that could certainly work. I'd take the liberty of notifying the appropriate WikiPojects, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Those sorts of exceptions tend to be..." means that they aren't exclusively so. There doesn't need to be an RFC, we can have a local consensus here. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I think we need an RfC. There was never consensus to add this person, so I think it would be best if we took this to RfC. I'll prepare one. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you are here to impose your will on this article? 331dot (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware discussion was an imposition of will on an article. You wanted a discussion on creating a localized exception, I am opening one up to broader discussion since this is a longstanding sitewide rule. Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I overstated what I was trying to say, but you are coming off as very passionate on this. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally understandable. A text-only medium can skew how we interpret or read what people are saying. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to add: What you cite is explicitly not policy and should not be referred to as such. "its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices"--User:Namiba 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been confirmed through multiple large RfCs over the last two decades. Toa Nidhiki05 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

RFCs have confirmed that it is the generally accepted practice but "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" according to the page itself.--User:Namiba 19:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The page itself isn't policy. The actual RfCs are broad, uncontested, and fairly binding decades-long working practice. I don't see a compelling reason to list Savage here other than "if you round up 4.95% is 5%". THat's certainly an argument... not a good one, though, in my opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Working practice" is not policy but you seem to be operating under the assumption that it is. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a standard rule used across the entire encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not a rule. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's literally called the "5% rule". Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a rule. That is just wrong. I can call it late for dinner, that doesn't make it so. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should Lisa Savage be included in the infobox?

Under the five percent rule, only candidates that have received 5% of the vote or greater should be included in election inboxes. Should a local exception be made to this rule to allow Lisa Savage, who received 4.95% of the vote, to be included in the infobox?

Tagging discussion participants 331dot and Namiba. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Please place comments below this.

• No, Lisa Savage should not be included in the infobox - She did not receive 5% of the vote, her vote total was not greater than the margin of victory in the election, and neither herself nor her campaign are particularly notable. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to make an exception to this rule. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• This is quibbling over a half of a tenth of a percentage point. We're not talking about a large population where that's a big number, either. Most RS would round that up. I think this is premature as well as the above discussion has not run its course. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be so wrapped up in rules(that aren't even actual rules) that we ignore common sense. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does common sense demand that we include a minor candidate who couldn't even pull 5% of the vote in a third-place finish? --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We're talking a half of a tenth of a percentage point. Most people will round that off and I don't see why we can't do so with regards to applying a "rule" that isn't even a rule. It could certainly be made a rule/policy. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You say why not, I ask why. If the only justification for adding her is "you can round up to 5%", then maybe she isn't actually that important to include? --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So if she were one vote short of 5%, that would be disqualifying from the box? I know of few if any other "rules" on Wikipedia that are applied so rigidly. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The Libertarian in the 2020 United States Senate election in Kansas won 4.99%. He's not in the infobox, or the template, because he didn't get 5%. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say one hundredth of one point, I said one vote. Would one vote be disqualifying? 331dot (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why this supposed "rule" is being applied so rigidly when our actual rules say we should be a little more flexible. And if no flexibility is permitted, why is this not an actual rule? 331dot (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's exceptionally unusual for a candidate that gets less than 5% of the vote to be notable enough to warrant inclusion, and frankly, even getting 5% isn't that impressive. Reliable sources off-wiki tend to regard 5% as a notable threshold. Toa Nidhiki05 23:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be an actual rule/policy that is written down and can specify no flexibility is permitted, not a pseudo-rule. But I get that's beside the point here. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You say one, I ask two, you say three, I ask four, at some point there has to be a solid rule, otherwise what's the point of even having guidelines? We already accept that extenuating circumstances can happen, like if she were an otherwise notable candidate or if she were second place or any number of others. And I don't find the argument of "what if number bigger?" to be, on its own, compelling evidence of infobox-level importance. You do. --Golbez (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Importance is relative. In a small state like Maine 40,000 votes is a big deal. It wouldn't be in California as a raw number. As I said to Toa I'm really wondering why this supposed "rule" is being applied so rigidly when few if any other rules on Wikipedia are. And it it's going to be that rigid, it should be an actual rule/policy. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it a lot? It's less than 5%. You say a lot here that it isn't a rule, but it's consensus backed up by a decade+ of consistency. If it were up to me, the threshold would be higher (10 or 15%), but if she didn't even get 5%, how can we seriously say she's noteworthy enough to be in the infobox? I could get if she won a county, but she didn't. The best argument here is rounding. I just don't get it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Inclined to agree that we shouldn't include. This isn't because we must adhere strictly to the 5% rule, but because there isn't a compelling reason to make an exception here. If Collins had fallen below 50% in the first round, and Savage got the exact same voteshare, I would support inclusion. However, I don't feel strongly about this either way. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. The 5% rule is well-established. While I'm OK with it being bent for exceptional circumstances`, there don't appear to be any here: Savage got some media attention, sure, but doesn't everyone? 5% might be an arbitrary cut-off, but it is also objective (no quibbling about just how close you need to be to count) and, frankly, extremely generous — if a candidate didn't even reach that then I'm not convinced they're actually worth calling attention to. To that point, this election isn't included in Template:Notable third-party performances in United States elections, and it doesn't seem like anyone's tried to add it. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No - If we start making an exception here? There'll be calls for exceptions everywhere. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Should stick to objective cutoff, since how close it needs to be to round up is subjective.2601:249:9301:D570:1469:F023:AE39:1F33 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No - I would be very ready to support inclusion in cases where candidates got outsized coverage by sources or there were other extraordinary factors (such as winning a county), but this doesn't seem to be the case with Savage. I think 331dot's argument is persuasive, but it's also important to note that the 5% floor is the arbitrary limit for otherwise not-especially notable candidates to be in the infobox. Changing that arbitrary limit would be fine by me, but there seems to be rather large consensus that 5% is a fair enough number (and as mentioned above, could be seen as over-generous). Simply put, in my opinion, the sources don't show Savage to be special enough to waive the limit. Gazamp (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Less than 5 is always less than 5. No need for rounding; rounding is a convenience in certain situations, but math never rounds in the real world. Even 4.9 is always less than 5. JM (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  point of order: no, it's not. .999... is identical to 1. 4.999... is identical to 5. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Savage received ample coverage throughout the campaign (see the Politico story above as evidence). 5 percent is an arbitrary number which does not necessarily represent how sources cover the election. As always, sources should be the guide and there is no question what the sources say.--User:Namiba 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes - Anyone following this election in the media would be subject to WP:ASTONISH if they didn't even see Savage in the infobox. It was a notable campaign. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for a couple of reasons. First, the 5 percent rule states that they must poll higher than 5%, not that they must get 5% of the vote. From that alone she meets the criteria. That said, if I'm misinterpreting (in the US polls tend to refer to surveys before the vote itself), I think this is a perfect example of WP:IAR. Being a few hundredths of a percent off is close enough. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order here - while the page says "poll", the RfCs clearly refer to both polls and election results. See the last five RfCs on the matter, including the 2017 RfC "The standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles is: A candidate must receive 5% of the vote." in particular. Polling is used before elections, while the actual result is used after the election happens. The stated exception is for when it's a major-party candidate and the second-place candidate gets less than 5% (see: 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia), or if there's a (for some reason) really unusual local exception - which isn't the case here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• No - Less than 5% is less than 5%. We don't hand out pity rewards for having barely failed a threshold. Koopinator (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

I just overhauled the lead. There were two problems. First, some content was not supported by a cited source anywhere in the article. Second, some content was accompanied by a citation, but was not actually supported by the cited source. After I removed the unsupported material, User:331dot reinstated it all, claiming that (a) some of the content I had removed really was supported by cited sources; (b) the rest of the removed content was so obvious that, per WP:BLUE, it did not need to be sourced; and (c) longstanding content should not be removed without discussion. (My responses are: (a) no, it wasn't; (b) no, it wasn't; and (c) if it is longstanding content that isn't supported by reliable secondary sources, it should not be here in the first place.) I added a half-dozen sources to the article and changed some wording to resolve these issues. I added a couple of tags in the article body and am now getting pushback from User:331dot on them. Rather than arguing back and forth, why not just find a reliable source and add it? ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I am here, please speak to me. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It is indeed self evident, all primary and federal elections in Maine since 2016 Maine Question 5 are ranked choice. If you really want a source, use the primary results. It isn't up to me to make your desired edits for you. I think it was incorrect to remove the fact that it was the first such election for this seat, a change in voting systems is notable. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You were bold, and made an edit, once found to be in dispute, you should discuss(WP:BRD) not necessarily press on because you think you are correct. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

331dot, please review WP:BURDEN. ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

14 years, very much aware, doesn't mean you don't have to discuss. I have not reverted your edits wholesale, but you've removed mucb longstanding, beneficial content. Your second effort was better. You have removed primary sources which are allowed for some things(WP:PRIMARY) like the recording of a vote. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

331dot, I call BS, and I challenge you to point to even one piece of accurate, well-sourced material that I have removed. In reality, over the past several hours, I have cited at least nine new reliable sources, cleaned up the footnotes (which needed it big time), added helpful content from the Susan Collins page, revamped the lead, and added key information that wasn't in the article before. Can you be honest enough to admit that the article is significantly upgraded because of the work that I've done? All you have done here today is complain about my changes and pretend that some of the problems I was fixing didn't exist. How do you think that improves the article? Or the encyclopedia? ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

On a different note: Per my tags, there are three places in the article where a citation is still needed, and there are seven places where a footnote failed verification. I have spent hours on this page today and need to move on to other things. I would invite other editors to help fix those problems. Thank you. ~2026-72635-4 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already acknowledged your changes and never been dishonest about that. Most of what you did was fine. It would be nice to restore the fact it was the first ranked choice election for this seat(which is just simple math and the calendar) and I still believe the citation needed tag is unnecessary for the fact that the primary was ranked choice, since all primaries in Maine are ranked choice after Question 5. At least once source you removed didn't "fail verification" as I already said- the information was there. I'm not invested enough in this to pursue it further. It just would have been nice to see a more collaborative attitude. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)