elections

Wikipedia:Articles on elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an information page, and describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. However, it is not a policy or guideline.

Wikipedia has many conventions that have emerged for election coverage. These have reached enough maturity that some very good examples can be identified.

Contents [hide] 1 For U.S. President 2 For other single-winner elections 3 For parliaments 4 Aftermath 5 Controversy 6 Bogus 7 Boring 8 Best practices and hazards

[edit] For U.S. President

Wikipedia:Style_for_U.S._presidential_election,_yyyy deals specifically with that type of election. Much of what follows still applies:

• U.S. presidential election, 2012 shows how to cover a predicted future electoral event that is almost universally believed to be inevitable; the focus should not be on "what might cause it" (as a constitution causes it) but on the candidates.

[edit] For other single-winner elections

Mayors and Governors and other Presidents are elected also in single-winner elections that require similar documentation to US President races. Focus is on the candidates, ultimately, in such elections.

[edit] For parliaments

Very different rules and standards apply for elections in parliamentary systems which are often hard to anticipate, and where there is not such a focus on personalities:
An upcoming election is a future event and no matter what polls or press say, it does not have a predetermined outcome. In some cases rumours about what might happen can bias the outcome, and this is something Wikipedia literally never wants to be accused of. Try to follow the good examples of how to do this fairly:

• The UK general election, 2005 coverage as of the day of its announcement shows exactly how complete coverage should be, when the event is widely anticipated - note that there are a great many disclaimers and requests for more information
• 41st Canadian federal election shows how to cover a predicted future electoral event that may not happen at all - the focus should be on what might make it happen, or not, and the consequences of that decision, not on the mechanics or candidates except insofar as their bios and more general articles should be linked

[edit] Aftermath

An election so strictly defined in law and practice and terminology that it can be documented very completely. After the event, a very complete article will be written, and any predicted effects or the timeline of the election can then be moved to a separate article as the actual effects are described in the article, that is now about the past event:
Worldwide, most elections are for a parliament along the British model. One good example of a recent parliamentary election showing all the best practices is:

• Canadian federal election, 2004, timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2004, results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 and the awe-inspiring results of the Canadian federal election, 2004: All on one page, Canadian federal election, 2004 map gallery show how complete the documentation should be after the fact. Anything you can do to get the documentation in its final form early, will save much time right after the election where the demand is high for the results, quick.

[edit] Controversy

Many elections are controversial. Here's some guidance about that:

• ROC presidential election, 2004 is a Taiwan election; Note that Mainland China, unlike most neighbouring countries, takes very specific positions on what should happen in Taiwan, and what party or leader - the one who most favours the one China policy - should be elected.
• U.S. presidential election, 2004
• Canada and the 2004 U.S. presidential election also makes note of the especially close relationship between the US and Canada, and the fact that Canadians are polled on which US president they would prefer; One Canadian ambassador to the US, in 2000, even stated a preference for Al Gore! This makes the Canada-US situation even more important, as there are often Canadians expressing opinions on US politics.
  • 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its subpages, including
    • 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression
  • George W. Bush shows how to cover a candidate that has been through many controversies
• 11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks shows how to cover an event that is widely believed to have affected an election outcome
• Russian presidential election, 2004 shows how to cover an exceptionally one-sided, but not universally condemned, election
• Iraqi legislative election, 2005 shows how to cover an election where a major faction or party boycotts the vote, where the legitimacy of the process is also questioned, and where there is need to report extreme and frequent violence or threats of same at polling places or in the runup to the election;

[edit] Bogus

Elections where electoral fraud is widely reported are not reported as elections at all, but, typically, as part of the biography of the incumbent political leader or "party" or faction that rigs the election, or, as part of an article on the final outcome, if the result overturns a government, as in Ukraine in 2004 and Kyrgystan in 2005.

[edit] Boring

There are also nice boring good examples, like

• British Columbia general election, 2005 shows how to cover a large number of minor parties, not all which of which are actually running.
• Alberta general election, 2004 shows how to cover an election in a smaller political unit than a whole country, but which is not a municipal election.

[edit] Best practices and hazards

A few best practices and hazards can also be identified:

• Neutral point of view is always important, but just before an election it is important to update pages and watch for any systemic bias due to one party or faction or another being over-represented in the overall edit stream
• Swing state covers a US-federal-election-specific term that changes. The definition and examples will require updating before each US election.