This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Per WP:SYNTH, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Find one source that says Kendra Horn is the Democratic nominee in this election almost two months before the primary. I will wait. KidAd • SPEAK18:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You won't wait long, here are two quotes from articles at the top of a Google News Search for Kendra Horn (one of which is already cited in this article):
"The race to fill U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe's unexpired term has drawn intense interest, with 13 Republicans in the primary to determine who will take on Libertarian Robert Murphy — Norman, Democrat Kendra Horn — Oklahoma City, and Independent Ray Woods — Cleo Springs, in the general election."-https://news.yahoo.com/congressional-races-bring-candidates-050500899.html
Directly in response to your WP:OR consern, the primary reasoning behind that policy is verifiability. Here, the official candidate list clearly verifies that there is only one candidate filed for the Democratic nomination. While it does have heightened standards applied since it is a primary source, I believe this meets the standard of "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." A primary source indicating there is only one democratic candidate seeking the office clearly indicates that they are the nominee for that party and it does not require specialized knowledge to determine that. Secondly, Infoboxes especially frequently omit citations (for better or for worse it's a common style choice) and the Nondoc article is cited in the article 3 times already. Reviewing sources already within the article is, in my experience, a good best practice before removing content --TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making a conclusion based on a list of candidates is the definition of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I urged you to find any source that named Kendra Horn as the Democratic nominee, and you provided two sources that don't even mention the word "nominee." Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources say, not any editor's assumption, conclusion, analysis, or educated guess. Feel free to continue this discussion here and stay on the hunt for that source, but I will be reverting again. KidAd • SPEAK19:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather pedantic to require the word "nominee" specifically from sources when they clearly indicate she is the nominee. How do you read the sentence "Kendra Horn was the only member of her party to file for the seat" other than her being the nominee? The Yahoo source is even more clear and declares her the Democratic candidate i.e. the nominee. Does this source satisfy you ("Kendra Horn, 45, of Oklahoma City, who represented the 5th Congressional District from 2019 to 2022, is unopposed for the Democratic nomination and will face the GOP nominee and the Libertarian and independent in the general election.") or is this not explicit enough? Sorry if I come across as frustrated, I've read dozens of newspapers and hundreds of articles covering this election and have incorporated the best of those sources into this article for months. This isn't a Wikipedia editorial assumption issue, secondary sources assume readers know enough about politics that if only one candidate is running they are the nominee. The fact that secondary sources assume readers will realize this strengths my point about this falling within the WP:OR Primary source allowance ("descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."). Additionally, nominee is defined as "A person named, or designated, by another, to any office, duty, or position; one nominated, or proposed, by others for office or for election to office." The sources clearly indicate that Kendra Horn is the only person nominated/proposed for election to office by the Democratic Party. Even if the article do not use the word 'nominee' they clearly indicate and evoke the definition. All three articles cited indicate that it is already known Kendra Horn will be on the ballot as the democratic nominee and any other reading of the article seems to be a misreading of the articles.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be far less confused about this if you just read WP:SYNTH. Running unopposed in a primary doesn't make a candidate an automatic nominee, which is why no source is making that conclusion this early. KidAd • SPEAK20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that statement "Running unopposed in a primary doesn't make a candidate an automatic nominee" is incorrect in Oklahoma. Running unopposed in an Oklahoma primary does make a candidate an automatic nominee, which is what all three secondary sources know and assume the reader knows. I think you would understand if you just read WP:PRIMARY #1 and #3. The discography list is a telling example analogous to the issue here. The state publishes a list of candidate and no candidate not on the list can run, just like no song not on a discography would appear on a CD. It is assumed common knowledge songs not on a discography list are not on songs on an album. Just like here, it is assumed common knowledge that no candidate not on the candidate list may run for office. The burden of proof being asked here is too high. Under your interpretation a clear statement like "Trump was the Republican candidate for president" would not prove he was the nominee because it does not use the word nominee, despite the fact it clearly communicates that he is the nominee. This is not a WP:SYNTH issue, the sources provided- independently of each other- each indicate Kendra Horn is the nominee. The issue here is a failure to consider synonymous terms ("unopposed for the Democratic nomination and will face the GOP nominee" v."was the only member of her party to file for the seat, giving her a clean shot to challenge the GOP primary winner" v. "13 Republicans in the primary to determine who will take on... Democrat Kendra Horn" v. nominee) as such. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel its weird not have a Democratic primary section and not have the "automatic" nominee listed on the infobox. Kendra Horn is only listed in the article in the "General election" section and to me that's weird that she's basically listed as the Dem nominee there but not on the infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kendra Horn should be added to the infobox as well, but we need to build a consensus before making changes to the page. I do not think we should have a Democratic primary section since there is no Democratic primary in this race. But we can include all the information about Kendra we would have included in the Democratic primary section under the general election section. Other users are concerned we don't have a reliable sources that Kendra is the Democratic nominee, but I think the official candidate list, or alternatively any of these 3 sources 123, clearly identify her as the nominee. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just wanted to note that editors were not the only ones confused that there is no Democratic primary for this race. Kendra Horn released a short Twitter video to clarify they are on the ballot in November, but that there is no primary for this seat in June. Horn Twitter videoTulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd; I'm looking at my sample ballot (Oklahoma resident, voting today), and there are six Democratic candidates for this US Senate special election. Sounds like a primary to me... Random the Navigator (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
