Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 29 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections C‑class Low‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Aug 2009 - Feb 2010 March 2010 - Dec 2010 Jan 2011 - Mar 2011 April 2011 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

David Duke

Sadly, he needs ot be added as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/david-duke-president_n_890755.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/david-duke-on-a-presidential-bid-yes-i-am-considering-it/241469/Themostcasualobserver (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this article, he is barred from seeking public office due to a felony conviction. Wouldn't this take him out? (Sorta if Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed he was considering a run, yet he couldn't do so legally) - RedState1995 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier (a convicted murderer) has run for president from jail before. Roger Calero was also the nominee of a minor party in the US despite the fact that he was not native-born. David Duke, if he does run, will probably claim that what the court did was unconstitutional or that he was framed, and I doubt he'll let a little felony conviction stop him (snark).

Misplaced Pages's policy is to list all candidates for office, even those who might not actually be eligible for office. This is partly because many states in the US allow candidates, such as Calero, Duke and Peltier, to appear on the ballot if nominated by an eligible party even if the candidates themselves aren't qualified. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a newer article about Duke if and when anyone wants to add it: http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/david_duke_president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.172.204 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What criterion is being used to sort candidates the declared candidacy?

I ask because I am wondering why Romney is being listed first. I know the media is calling him the front runner, but I really think that depends what poll you are reading. Michele Bachmann just won the Ames Iowa poll. I think to avoid suggesting one is doing better than an other they should either be alphabetical or chronological according to the date they entered the race. --Diamond Dave (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be in alphabetical order and had been since this page was created. I don't know how it ended up the way it is now, but I think it should be changed back.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I have just sorted the candidates by date of declaration, and then saw this after. I actually think this makes more sense, as you can simply add people on if more declare, and it gives a quick visual impression of how the race developed. Either way, any ordering is better than just random, so I'll leave it like it is, and if anyone wants to resort the whole thing into alphabetic, then go ahead Wikiditm (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to ordering by declaration date, however, they didnt appear to be sorted like that. Fred Karger and Jimmy McMillan were the first to announce and Rick Perry was the most recent. The order that had been up had Romney first which would not be correct. --Diamond Dave (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.104.232 (talk)

Personally I think the declaration date would be best, however I was looking through previous years pages, and noticed they're all in alphabetical order. For the purpose of consistency, it would probably be best to keep the candidates in alphabetical order. Kessy628 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn Candidates

I noticed that Tim Pawlenty was removed from the list of candidates, as he should have been, when he dropped out of the race, however I feel that removing him completely from the page is not the way to go. Would it be possible to have a list of candidates that have dropped out of the race, that can be added to as the race goes on and more candidates drop out, much as the page Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000 has? Kessy628 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2000 page is probably the ideal model for this page. Pawlenty should be removed from a list of active candidates, but should not be removed from the page entirely, as he has been. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, there was a bit and it will be returned shortly. The problem is that the running candidates have been ordered twice today. Firstly by me into chronological order (which I still think is better, unless it is clear in[REDACTED] guidelines that this is wrong) and then by Newbreeder into alphabetic order by last name. Unfortunately, due to mistakes in this second reordering, the bit on Pawlenty has disappeared, and the bottom of the table seems to have been lost also. I'm going to revert to the previous, less error-containing version, until someone can reorder the candidates without having such an effect on the page.Wikiditm (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Pawlenty has been restored along with "Withdrew candidcy" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan has been added to the list of speculative candidates, however I noticed that the second source cites and is based on the first source. Furthermore, in a quick Google search, I've only found the Weekly Standard source as a unique, reliable source; most of the other links either cite the Weekly Standard or are blog posts. Personally I'm of the opinion that the only source that says he's mulling a run is the Weekly Standard, which has been calling for him to run for a while now, and therefore he shouldn't be on the list, but I'd like to hear some other editor's opinions. Kessy628 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right about TWS, but since reliable publications such as USA Today cite it, I think it's credible. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough that TWS is credible, however the issue still remains about needing 2 unique sources. Kessy628 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller DC article may be may be based on TWS article, but it is not a re-hashing, as it has much "independent" content, such as quoting Karl Rove on Hannity on the issue, as well as Bill Kristol, who isn't mentioned in the TWS article. So I think the two citations suffice.--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this Washington Post article would be better as a second source. Though it quotes from the TWS article, it has quotes from other sources as well as the author's own analysis on the subject of Ryan's potential presidential candidacy.--JayJasper (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the DC article with the aforementioned WP article, which should satisfy the "two unique sources" criterion.--JayJasper (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes me a bit happier, though the fact that the Post article is a blog means that there's grounds for a future battle over it. But for now I'm indifferent enough to say the Post article works for a second unique source. Kessy628 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the current sources. You're not going to have better, until he makes his intentions known. --Smart (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Are_weblogs reliable sources?, paragraph 2. I believe WaPo article meets the standard, given that its author, Jennifer Rubin, is a notable journalist.--JayJasper (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Sharkey

There was NEVER any reason why this guy was added to the list of candidates. He filed an FEC report, but it did not state that he was a republican. Also, the article that listed his candidacy also listed 77 other people who filed reports as well. Those people are not guaranteed placement on wikipedia, so why is he even put up here? I'm not knocking his[REDACTED] page, because my understanding is, he's a wrestler and he had beef with George Bush, so he is notable enough to be on wikipedia, def, but not relevant to the republican field. --Screwball23 talk 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He is trivial and won't appear in any debates, so he shouldn't be on here. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree with you. At the election talk page we had a huge argument about it here. No matter how much this is contested, I fear that will be defeated. People like you and me are fiercely for his inclusion, and others are fiercely against it. What troubles me is that on pages for past elctions, no perennial candidates appear on the lists of candidates. I invite you to bring it back up for serious discussion, but my legitimate fear is that it will be rejected, again. SOXROX (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the "consensus" mentioned above to keep him in was a vote that, if I'm counting correctly, went in the order of 8 in favor and 7 against, with 2 of those in favor's being a weak yes calling for a revision of the criteria for inclusion. That to me says its about time to reopen this argument, and form a new consensus for inclusion. Notability should not be a criteria for inclusion because you get cases like this: Sharkey is notable enough for inclusion to[REDACTED] as a wrestler, not as a person running for office. Kessy628 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just vote to exclude somebody. He fits the page's criteria built from years of consensus and based on wikipedia's principles. I do remember one that was quite explicit, but don't have time to dig it up right now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he doesn't fit the criteria as it stands. What I'm arguing is that if he fits the criteria, the criteria needs a new look. I'm open not only to removing him from the page but more so to relooking at the original consensus on criteria for inclusion. If you could find the original consensus I'd personally be interested in seeing it. Kessy628 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold it, I want to make it very clear that there is no evidence that he is a Republican running in the Republican primaries. That alone should disqualify him. Also, and I want to make this very, very clear - he is among 77 candidates that have filed FEC reports, none of whom are on wikipedia. The only reason he is on this page, I suspect, is because he already had a[REDACTED] page linked to his wrestler profile, and since he had a picture and sizable content on his page, people just thought it was a legit candidacy, without questioning why it was on the GOP 2012 field.--Screwball23 talk 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose another request for comment. The emergence of three new editors that are opposed to the standards signal that it should be brought up for discussion a second time. So how is this question- Should the criteria for inclusion in United States presidential election, 2012 be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the criteria is, so we can start up there :->. What I do know, and yes, I want to get this off my chest, what I do know is the fact that[REDACTED] is not a who's who. The reason the older elections do not contain many of the minor candidates is because historians, and encyclopedia writers, are not crazy enough to include dozens of people who were "not running". History books do not lose value because they neglected to include some longshot candidate who competed with Thomas Jefferson and won 3 votes. If someone bothered to include something that insignificant and unimportant, the history book would lose value to the reader. I think the idea of including all the names of people who are "not running" is absolute stupidity, and is a complete violation of wikipedia's Misplaced Pages:NOTNEWS policy. I mean, who in the hell is going to read this page in 50 yrs thinking, hey, I want to make sure that Allan West was not running in 2012? I don't even think people are going to care to read the campaign pages on each of the candidates, either. Honestly, they are so badly written, I feel bad for the people who are reading them now :->. I can't understand why no one has included the actual developments of the race. I mean, there is no summary, no history of the race, I mean, absolutely nothing. The energy that has been wasted on this page is absolutely staggering. People have updated gallery photos again and again, posting news factoids about people who are speculated to run, I mean, why the hell are we going to write rumors on who's speculated on running when the primaries have been on for months now? --Screwball23 talk 05:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with Misplaced Pages's policy of notability then maybe you should attempt to change the policy. Nevertheless, this page is based on that concept, not on personal opinion. There is no elite class in American politics, any individual can run and if that individual fits wikipedia's policy of notability then they will be listed on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Saturn you're not addressing the actual argument here. You're saying that a consensus was developed that the criteria for inclusion was that the person was notable enough to have a[REDACTED] page about them. Well three of us now are going further than Sharkey, and asking whether the criteria needs to be looked at again. Just cause someone is notable enough to have a[REDACTED] page about them does NOT mean that they are a notable candidate for president. I'll make a new section about this for now to make sure we stay on topic. Kessy628 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, just because he has a[REDACTED] page does not make him notable to the presidential field.--Screwball23 talk 02:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Screwball while I'm in favor of taking him out, Difluoroethene is right. Until this debate is resolved we should keep the original version, the one that had Sharkey on the page. If (and hopefully when) we can get a consensus for removal and/or a change in criteria then we can remove him. Until then, just leave him, if only to avoid a major edit war. Kessy628 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's against policy. It's flat-out wrong to do this. If something does not belong on a page, it is the burden of the person adding it to defend its inclusion. So far, I've seen User:William S. Saturn side-step the issue, saying this is a case for AFD (an obvious run-around) and I see Difluoroethane hasn't even joined the discussion. And believe me, for as long as they get their way, they won't bother to discuss it here.--Screwball23 talk 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it doesn't belong, and I agree that Saturn has been sidestepping the issue, the way to go isn't to edit war it off the page. If they don't discuss it here, or continue to just sidestep the arguments presented, it bolsters our argument if we go further in the dispute resolution chain. If they do, then we're where we want to be, discussing the issue. Kessy628 (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Screwball is mistaken about policy. As things are discussed the consensus version should remain in place. Consensus has not changed because there is no clear criteria agreed upon in this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

First, a clarification on Saturn: not the consensus version (which implies the entire debate is moot), but the pre-arguement version (the version that was there before the issues about Sharkey and the criteria as a whole were raised). Anyway, part of the reason there is no clear criteria is because there hasn't been a full discussion. The issues stated by Screwball, me, and others have been sidestepped or ignored. I agree with the outcome (that he stays until consensus is developed on a new criteria), however you must actively discuss it first. Saying "consensus has been X, and that's what it is" ignores our arguments; I still haven't gotten an answer to my last post on my idea (the one that you said was an interesting idea). TLDR: leave Sharkey on, but make sure you (as in all editors) engage in an active, open-minded discussion; if you can convince me that the current consensus is the best move, I'll be the first to change my mind, but that onus is also on you. Kessy628 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Saturn this is never going to go away if you keep sidestepping the issue. Personally, I would go along with any changes Screwball makes as long as Sharkey is not included! You seem to think you are the "leader" of election pages, but even if you are, you have to compromise and discuss! Since you can't stop mentioning consensus, it[REDACTED] consensus that there should be active discussion on the talk page into compromise is made. We need a request for comment. SOXROX (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we open up a RfC I'd like to wait for some outside opinions from ]. Hopefully we can get some opinions from some other editors and reach a conclusion before having to go through the entire RfC process. Kessy628 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion on this, including comments from uninvolved editors. Therefore, I'm removing Sharkey as per the specific consensus reached here (I see at least 4 editors for removal and only 2 opposed). If people wish to start a RfC, I'd be happy to start it, however I do think that for now we don't need to bother. While a consensus says one thing, consensus can also make exceptions to prior consensuses, which is what's been done here. Kessy628 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Under what criteria? Please remember that[REDACTED] is not a democracy. We can't just vote candidates off this list.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. But[REDACTED] is based on the idea of consensus. Consensus is to remove him from the list because he's notable for being a wrestler, not for his presidential runs. Kessy628 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Current consensus is to include all notable candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And current consensus is that Sharkey is an exception. I've seen 4 against inclusion and 2 for. Unless you can sway 2 people, he stays off. Kessy628 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. In what world is it NPOV to exclude notable candidates? Do you feel that if we hold a poll and get a "consensus" to remove Bachmann, that we should then remove Bachmann? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What's nonsense is you refusing to accept consensus. You haven't commented at all about changing the criteria since we let it wait a bit to see if anyone posted. Then, when a waiting period is done and we decide to accept the consensus and remove him, NOW you come back and fight it. It's not NPOV at all to remove someone who's notability and presidential run are completely separate and nonrelated issues. Kessy628 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then explain to me what Sharkey is notable for. He certainly is not notable for being a wrestler. And even if he was, the fact that he's a notable individual is enough to include him on this list. Anyone in the U.S. can run for president. It's not reserved for an elite few.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He's notable for being a wrestler and for his comments about Bush, hence the weight they have in his article. And no one is saying that running for president is reserved for an elite few. But then by that logic why is everyone else running not on the list? All 87 or so of them. Because they're not notable candidates, that's why, and neither is Sharkey. Kessy628 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The others are excluded because they are not notable individuals.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How is he notable? If that can't be addressed, there is no hope for discussion here.--Screwball23 talk 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He's notable because countless AFDs have said so. He receives coverage in reliable sources. I voted to delete his article, but I abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you voted to delete his article, and now you're edit-warring to put it on here? ...wow, that's something... I still don't get your connection here. How is that relevant here?--Screwball23 talk 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't fault Saturn for that, its unrelated to the issue at hand. I'll stop reverting for now, if only so I don't break 3RR, but this isn't settled. Unless anyone objects by tomorrow morning, I'm gunna open an RfC on the criteria itself, forget Sharkey. There needs to be a way of differentiating a notable candidate and a notable person on wikipedia, and as of now they're 1 and the same, which is just not true. Kessy628 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting the gloves off. I have at least 3 policies that immediately disqualify Sharkey's candidacy from the page.

• WP:INDEPTH - An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.

The coverage of Sharkey was only mentioned within the context of other candidacies, and I can go to politics1.com and find 100+ more of the same.

• WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.

In this case, the event of his candidacy just doesn't cut it. It hasn't been an enduring news story, and it has no long-term effect on the page.

• WP:DIVRSE - Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

Sharkey wasn't even interviewed by multiple sources, and the coverage he got certainly was not wide-ranging or national by any means.

• Misplaced Pages:Let the dust settle - This is going to be for history, not for news. Readers of this page will not come here to find out the schedule of debates with their local TV listings, and the policy states clearly that an individual or event must last beyond the 15 minutes of fame to be notable. Sharkey didn't even receive 15 minutes of fame, and I think we've probably spent more time debating this on[REDACTED] than he's even spent on the campaign trail. It just doesn't make sense why someone would waste so much time in their precious life to argue for the inclusion of a candidacy that wasn't even significant enough to gain national coverage.--Screwball23 talk 04:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then nominate the article at AFD. I am simply upholding the current consensus on the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We have said REPEATEDLY that he is notable Saturn! It's just that he isn't notable to this campaign. If we were being biased against an "elite" class, wouldn't we want to remove martin and mcmillan too? In the May discussion, it was decided that there was NO CONSENSUS! Read the bottom of the discussion again. There was never any consensus given on new criteria. So therefore you're upholding, basically, you're own opinion since we may have found a consensus here. SOXROX (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically Soxrox said everything I would have said. He's notable, just not for the campaign. That's what we've been saying for a while. You keep talking of consensus, but all I see is you going AGAINST a consensus developed here in favor of an earlier consensus. Kessy628 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus from this discussion of just a few users. Further, the few users here cannot even agree to a criteria and resort to simply removing candidates that have already been judged by the community as notable. Why are you singling out Sharkey when Martin, McMillan, Karger and Roemer are ignored by the mainstream media just as often?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit.

• Andy Martin - LA Times article
• Jimmy McMillan - spoke at CPAC, interviewed on Fox News
• Fred Karger - LA Times, Huffington Post
• Roemer - NY Times

Don't say something you can't defend, my friend. it took me a few minutes to find these. This is what makes a candidate suitable enough to be included on the page. Edit-warring does not.--Screwball23 talk 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also to go along with that, a quick search of ny times, la times, boston globe, politico, washington post, and the huffington post turned up nothing for sharkey. Just saying. Kessy628 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and also Saturn, your "consensus" you keep talking about was 7 editors, 3 of which voted unsure. This consensus you keep denying exists came from 6 editors, 4 opposed to his addition and 2 for his addition. So don't say that your consensus came form the community and ours is a few users, cause that's a load of bull. Kessy628 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for Sharkey can also be found. Check the references on this page. He passes the two source minimum standard. Moreover, consensus was developed over time and for Sharkey through AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when did anyone say there was a 2 source minimum standard? And why do you keep insisting that consensus was developed through time? WP:Consensus can change And what importance do those sources have on this page, which is about a candidate running for office? Even Andy Martin has run TV ads and had news outlets pick up his candidacy because of his birther issue And come on, the Washington Times and the Seattle PI are pretty good sources. I'm not going to toot Andy Martin's horn, but his birther issue, which he argued for throughout 2009 and 2010, actually became an influential topic in the campaign - prompting Obama to release his birth certificate. McMillan has been to nationally-publicized political events like CPAC 2011, and he's been on TV, interviewed on Fox News. Fred Karger has significant coverage in California news sources, and his influence on same-sex marriage issues is comparable to Duncan Hunter and immigration in 2008. When the caucuses start up next year, you will see some candidates receive delegates votes and others will not. That's when the call for obscurity that you've been fighting for will really start to show. Here, let me make this simple. Listen to me closely, Saturn. And think deeply about this, because you have been losing time and effort that you could be spending elsewhere. Forget the AFD discussions you've had, because those are not relevant. Forget the "established consensus" arguments. Tell me, how is Sharkey notable to this page?--Screwball23 talk 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He meets the two source minimum standard established several years ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's garbage. The sources cover 4 other candidates at the same time, saying there's 77 others as well. And you continue to neglect my question. What about the notability standard? And how did he even run as a candidate? There are around 100 FEC reports filed by presidential candidates and wannabes. His didn't even say he was a Republican. Now, according to his "withdrawal", he never even had any donations or contributions to this campaign. I know you are from the wikinews crowd, but this is an encyclopedia. We are writing for history, not news. Why would anyone read an article on a presidential election years from now to find a photo on a guy who didn't have any influence on the election, didn't receive a single vote, didn't have any contributions or expenditures, and never even ran a campaign aside from getting someone at the bank fired?---Screwball23 talk 19

52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to administer the WP:10 year test to this ridiculous argument. Flash forward 10 years. It is August 27, 2021. Johnny Smith is bored. School starts in a few days, and Johnny has nothing to do. Going to the super-computer-that-will-be-out-soon-I-hope,, he looks up the 2012 election as a random search. Looking at the Republican candidates, who should he see? The obvious ones would be Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul, while Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich would also be fairly important. But then who should the minor ones be? Should it include former Governors Johnson and Roemer, who recieved no support? Should it include Martin, a leader of the birther movement that took the nation by storm in spring 2011? Should it include McMillan, the perennial candidate who participated in several interviews and spoke at a major Republican forum? Should it include Karger, the first openly gay candidate ever to run for the nation's highest office? Should it include Sharkey, an oddball who has been arrested several times, threatened our President, and claimed to be a Vampire?

For Roemer, and Johnson, the answer is of course. For Martin and Karger, the answer is also a pretty definitive yes. While McMillan is debateable, I would consider that to also be a yes.

Now consider Sharkey. For the other five that receive minimal coverage, the descriptions given make them seem notable (McMillan to a lesser extent) for this election. But Sharkey's description sounds like, well, you get the idea. Saturn, I just don't undersand why you won't budge on this. There was not any consensus on the last debate, and there is now. SOXROX (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said I would, I've opened an RfC on the criteria of inclusion. We need to get to the root of this problem, and the criteria is the issue here. If the criteria is tightened to stop candidates such as Sharkey from being considered notable, this discussion becomes moot. Kessy628 (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No it won't. I can tell from Saturn's disregard for wikipedia's other policies that his scorn is far from over. You think you can draft a set of foolproof criteria that everyone will agree to so that people, all people, all editors, from now on, will continue to use those and will respect them and end all discussions from then on? You're getting delusional, my friend. I can promise you that this discussion won't stop here, or in 2016, or anywhere else. The long-term importance is important, not some bullshit criteria. I know how administrators on[REDACTED] work too, and they abuse policy all the time. The idea that you can make a quantifiable policy that will work 100% of the time just isn't true. And I'm surprised you would even believe in this idea of a "criteria" based on the fact you know already how it was never fully-accepted anyway.--Screwball23 talk 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

There is a discussion going on above about the criteria for inclusion into this and other similar articles, and I figured I would make a new section that was on the topic. According to User: William S. Saturn, the criteria for inclusion, as developed by an earlier consensus, is the basic notability standard; mainly, that the person has a[REDACTED] page on them. I personally think this is too broad, as it leads to candidates like Sharkey, who is notable enough due to his wrestling career, however is by far not notably running for president. Therefore, I propose to change the criteria, and I'd like to solicit opinions on what to change it to/add to it, and on whether it should be changed. Kessy628 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my proposal...

A- Candidate must have filed with the FEC. B- For third parties, only the nominee should be listed, and all independents as long as they have a Misplaced Pages article. C- If running for one of the two major parties, they should have at last 1% of the vote in the polls (we would just have to decide on the minimum number of polls- I 'd say 3 to 5) or have participated in an official debate.

For the Republican section, this would list Governor's Perry, Romny, and Johnson, Senator Santorum, Reps Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann, plus Cain and Karger (who has garnered 1% in a few polls).

Under this criteria, Sharkey, Moore, Martin, and McMillan would have to be removed. Sadly, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer and Rep Thad McCotter would have to be removed because they don't have 1% in enough polls.

So that's my proposal, what do you guys think? SOXROX (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We are not going to go through some nonsense polls and determine who has 1% based on hypothetical polls. The polls are usually bogus, and we are not tools for some political operatives, eliminating people just because they didn't make 1% on some push poll. That being said, I don't like the idea of removing Thad McCotter and Buddy Roemer because both have garnered attention on Politico.com and Fox news. Both of their candidacies were explored on the New York Times website, and Roemer's run has its own page. They are serious candidates, and they have serious media following them. I don't know what attention Moore's candidacy has received, but I know for a fact that McMillan was interviewed on Sean Hannity and made a few public appearances with leading candidates, including at CPAC 2011. The reason I do not support the addition of Sharkey is because he is not significant to the events of the race. He has very, very little media attention on him. The sources I've seen don't make it clear that he's running for the Republican nomination, and on Politics1.com, I see him alongside dozens and dozens of other non-notable candidates. It just doesn't make sense to add Sharkey, considering how many other 3rd and 4th tier candidates are not included, and might have even more media attention on them.--Screwball23 talk 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What if instead of a polling requirement, its required that they have X number of national media sources. For instance, Roemer and McCotter were featured on Politico and Fox news; that would fit. Sharkey, on the other hand, has only had local media coverage from what I know, or very limited if any national coverage, and wouldn't pass this muster. Just another idea for thought. Kessy628 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not too crazy about that either, because I know how policies are misinterpreted here on wikipedia. Someone with enough time on their hands will wait and collect enough obscure references to make a candidate appear on the page, and a perennial candidate might meet the requirement simply because they went through a few election cycles. There's also the headache of what constitutes national coverage, considering the fact that most people get their news from the Internet. That being said, I think the best solution would be to include major campaigns with sustained major news coverage first, and the 2nd and 3rd tier ones can be decided case-by-case.--Screwball23 talk 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The only issue with case-by-case basis decisions is there's a lack of consistency. It would allow people to use "oh X made it on the list, so why cant Y?" sort of excuses. As for meeting the requirement from multiple election cycles, it could be limited to only articles from the most recent cycle (candidate Z can't use news articles from his 2008 run, for instance). Kessy628 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We should go with coverage in reliable sources instead of polling. How about, the candidate must receive consistently substantial coverage in national media. That is vague, but I think it's enough. If not, we could come up with something like x-amount of articles in reliable sources per week. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation should probably be taking place on Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 since that's the talk page for the central election article which affects the others. Also, you'll probably get more input there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The questions of who is and who is not a major candidate leads ultimately to the question of notability. Many here are failing to realize that there is no political elite to choose from when noting who runs for president. Polling or national media coverage are very complex solutions to a problem that does not exist. Discussions like this go in circles and do not reach a resolution, that is why the current standard is used.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And what is the current standard? To add anybody with an FEC filing, add anybody speculated of running, and add people who are not running? Because that is what I see on the page currently.--Screwball23 talk 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Saturn I went through the archives you mentioned on the 2012 page and found the consensus you're talking about. What you're failing to mention is that the consensus developed due to a reversion of an attempt to fix this very problem, an attempt that was determined to be too complicated, and that said consensus was primarily developed with 3/7 editors commenting undecided. That to me may be consensus, but it is not strong enough to give reason against reopening the question of what the criteria should be.

Also, I have another idea: instead of using the candidate's article as a notability guideline, why not use whether they have a "XXXX presidential campaign" article. If they have that article, it means that their campaign is notable enough to have been talked about, that it has enough reliable sources, and that it is verifiable. Kessy628 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

that's even worse. There is no reason to write campaign articles about non-notable candidates just so they won't be deleted. The explosion of campaign articles is a major pain, and I see it as a crumbling of discussion on wikipedia. Rather than work together to put one campaign article together, it seems that people would rather go into closed-minded little groups and cover one candidate they like. Let me decipher the proposals and we'll talk through a discussion on this. I see this diverting from Jonathan Sharkey, so if you would rather have this thread somewhere else, please give me the link.--Screwball23 talk 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I meant. Not that we make the articles for the candidates, but that the articles 'are' the standard for inclusion. Those articles, if not properly sourced and proven to be notable campaigns, hopefully would be deleted; the ones that survive would most likely be the ones that are notable campaigns.

You are right, though, about this diverting from Sharkey. I'll bring it up on the 2012 presidential campaign page, link to here, and summarize/quote the proposals. Hopefully that will not only give this debate better placement in terms of where it should go on, but it should also solicit new responses. If no one complains, I'll do it later tonight/sometime tomorrow. Kessy628 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, however, we need a standard that can work across all presidential election pages. There is no George H.W. Bush presidential campaign, 1988 or even Bill Clinton presidential campaign, 1996, so if this idea applies to those pages as well, then the candidates that won election would not even be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it would be bad to say as a "going forward" sort of thing, or even starting with the 2008 pages? I mean, if a new consensus is created in general, it would be hard for former year's pages to conform to them; since there's no new info coming out, I'd say that they should stay as is, or include a specific note on the talk pages about them conforming to an earlier consensus. I do see your point here, however. Kessy628 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Screwball, the individuals are not thrown together as you mischaracterize above. There are clearly defined sections on this page: the actual candidates, which have announced their intentions or filed with the FEC and have reached wikipedia's standard of notability; the speculated candidates, whose intentions the media have discussed in two sources; those that have declined to run; and those who once but no longer receive speculation for a run. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for input from WikiProject United States presidential elections.

Because of that, I take back my intent to move the discussion, if only to relieve the difficulties of uninvolved editors having to link jump to find the current discussion. Kessy628 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved to its own topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.6.60 (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I know I've made this suggestion before and been mocked, but I do not see why a list under the gallery of "minor candidates" can't be included--that way your pat paulsen, morry taylor, jimmy mcmillan and jon sharkey's of the world can be listed for the sake of completeness (people notable enough to be listed, but not notable enough to be contenders)without muddying the waters of the article...68.51.172.204 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to work with tables super well, but that sounds like a fair idea and a smart way of working out this whole issue. Kessy628 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a "minor candidate"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

fluff lead

The Republican Party presidential primary elections and caucuses for the United States presidential election of 2012 are slated to be held in the 2012 calendar year as a means of determining the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

This lead sentence has been up for too long. It may have been good a year or two ago, but right now, the campaign is underway. In fact, it's been underway for months now. It's time to add information, not fluff. We've already lost about 4 months of developments in the race because editors have not documented any of the action. Furthermore, this lead is outside of convention. Both the republican and democratic campaigns from 08, 04, 00, 96, etc, etc, have information in the lead, not some lengthy 20-word explanation of what it is slated to be. This lead doesn't even make sense. Slated to be held in the 2012 calendar year? Really? So 2011's developments don't matter? It is a means of determining? Really? Is this the only means, or one of many? What other means are there?--Screwball23 talk 18:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not denying that we need to put more info in the lead, but this is the first paragraph from the Democratic primary 2008 page:

"The 2008 Democratic presidential primaries were the selection process by which voters of the Democratic Party of the United States chose their candidate for the 2008 United States presidential election. The Democratic Party candidate for president was selected through a series of primary elections and caucuses culminating in the 2008 Democratic National Convention held from Monday, August 25, through Thursday, August 28, 2008, in Denver, Colorado."

Just to throw that out here. On the other hand, as Screwball says, 2004 and 2000, along with the republican pages for 2008, 2004, and 2000 (didn't check back further) don't have the fluff in the lead, which makes me think the 2008 dem page is a abnormality, vs. a guide for this. Kessy628 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Screwball, but we at least need links describing what the primaries are. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I completely agree with that. I can be happy with an embedded link to something like primary and I know full well that the lead will change as the race shapes up. But please remember the readers here. Someone can search through the presidential primary pages for the last few decades and run into historical info. Or they can be forced to read some whacked out explanation again and again, without any real information. It's an insult to someone's intelligence to put out a long, winding definition of what a primary is (or is slated to be) and then put hyperlinks to primary and election just so they can read it again and again. That was the path this page was headed down, and I want to make it clear that this is an encyclopedia. People come here for info on topics they search for. The buzzwords and excessive hyperlinks do not add value to the page, and any good encyclopedia entry would focus instead on the already 4-month history of this race.--Screwball23 talk 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My only issue with your version is the use of past tense; it's awkward and that too doesn't help the reader. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I reworked the lead, let me know if you have any issues with it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job, NYyankees51, your re-worked lead is consistent with WP:MOSBEGIN which states "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific". I think you nailed it.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Much better.--Screwball23 talk 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. As Screwball said, it will change as the race moves forward but we can use the current version as the starting point. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul?

Why is Ron Paul not mentioned anywhere in the article save his picture? Given that he practically tied in the Iowa Straw Poll, I would certainly think that he deserves at least as much of a mention as Rick Perry does. I know that the format of this is messed up, but I don't understand how all of this works. I just came here to find the date of the primaries and was struck by what seems like some serious unfairness, given that he is clearly a powerful contender, as he places in the top three in nearly every poll between GOP candidates, and wins by a large margin in many of them as well. - Unsigned by an Incompetent. 24.125.6.60 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He gets the same amount of focus on this page as every other candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Add some info on him. He's definitely making a stronger impact than he did in 08, and his status as "intellectual grandfather" of the Tea Party certainly gives him a solid position on the page.--Screwball23 talk 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I also added a really small change into the lead on how he came incredibly close to beating bachman in the straw poll. Kessy628 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kessy - that looks fair to me! -Unsigned by the same Incompetent. 24.125.6.60 (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ryan not running

Paul Ryan not running --Smart (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was unfortunate that the IP's making the edits moving Ryan from "speculated" to "declined" didn't use sources or edit summaries to convey what they were doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I only did three edits: 1. Remove him from Speculated, 2. Remove him from the bar at the bottom of the page in the "Potential Candidates" section, 3. Removed him from the main page --Smart (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Meteoric rise for Michele Bachmann

There seems to be some issue with the campaign developments section. The campaign developments section is a history of the campaign. It is a bad precedent to just remove the events and put someone's name down. How can someone understand a history book, for example, if no one put down George Washington achieves victory and instead put George Washington as a title for a historical reading on his winning battles? I have multiple sources for "meteoric rise". I also am open to discussion on the issue here.--Screwball23 talk 19:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At User_talk:Muboshgu#2012 gop primaries, which I see you haven't replied to, I commented that based on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch, the phrase "meteoric rise" might violate any and all of the following: puffery, unsupported attributions, and/or editorializing. You have several editors reverting your attempts to reinsert that language. Please stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on, you see the news sources just like I do. Again and again, I have news articles that use and verify the statement. I also don't see your rationale. You say it "might violate" something, and I don't see any reason why the title could be no good. it is supported, it is not puffery, and it is clearly in the sources. Do you have a rationale of why it might violate something, because you have to understand where I'm coming from. I'm putting up information, and I have people saying it has "extra verbiage", "there's several editors against it", "it might violate A,B, or C policies". That type of argument just isn't constructive. Please give me an idea what you believe is the issue.--Screwball23 talk 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because newspapers use certain phrases doesn't mean we copy them. They are in news, we are working on an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is to remain neutral and objective at all times. "Meteoric rise" is a subjective, puffy term that can mean different things in different contexts. Saying she rose in the polls is objective and verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We still should talk about her rise though. Honestly, on June 1, no one took her seriously as a candidate. It's a little like Obama 4 years ago, only to a bigger extent, because Bachmann was polling in the low single digits. The article definitely should elaborate on that. SOXROX (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Soxrox. You have to understand, and this is key : she declared in late June, received huge media coverage, notability, and surged to #1 in the Ames poll by mid August. That's 2 months. Single digits to #1 in Iowa in 2 months. That is undeniable and it is not subjective. She was featured in Newsweek and The New Yorker. That again is not subjective. The entire idea that it is subjective is just nonsense. It is verifiable. I showed you a link with multiple sources saying she had a meteoric rise. So it's verifiable. Now, as for "rising in the polls". That's not very objective. I can find instances where gingrich rose in the polls, where herman cain rose in the polls, where rick perry rose in the polls, etc. The point is, if you wanted to, you could find a rise in the polls for anyone. Remember,[REDACTED] policy states that it has to be notable and encyclopedic. Saying she rose in the polls is not useful, notable, or encyclopedic. If anything, it insults the reader. I mean, if you read section after section saying, "Herman cain rises in the polls", "bachmann rises in polls", would you learn anything qualitative? Would you understand if it was a fast rise, slow rise, mild rise, minor rise, etc. And what about the media coverage? Her political profile rose as a whole. Forget polls. Misplaced Pages is not about some horse-race polling. It's not about following some hypothetical polling like some tools for a political operation. This is about being encyclopedic. And if something is verifiable, informative, and encyclopedic, it deserves its spot. But don't take my word for it. There are people who think that something, anything, that can be subjective, must be removed. But look at the Glorious revolution. Why is it called that? Well, there are a lot of references for that. There is no policy that says Misplaced Pages should remove information that is well referenced. Polling, and yes, I will repeat this, polling is subjective. It requires a person to look at select polls over select periods of time. It doesn't even make sense, considering the fact that polls included Sarah Palin and Donald Trump at times. It doesn't help anyone to just follow polls either, because a field of candidates that lacks name recognition can have really skewed polls.--Screwball23 talk 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but terminology like "meteoric rise" still violates a whole bunch of Misplaced Pages principles and guidelines. We can talk about her emergence, but not in a way that violates NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"A whole bunch"? How does it violate NPOV?--Screwball23 talk 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it's subjective and puts forward a point of view. And yes, "a whole bunch", the ones I've already referenced. I'll list them again: WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:EDITORIAL. I don't disagree with you or SOXROX that her rise in the polls should be documented, but I wholeheartedly object to the phrase "meteoric rise". I think it's fine as it presently is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand that this is not just "a rise in polls". That was never the issue. We could follow polls and reduce an article to garbage. It is not about finding "newt gingrich rises in polls", "donald trump rises in polls" as a means of writing the article. The concept of polls as a means for writing the article is not helpful, substantiated, or notable. If someone wanted to write about polls, they could write a month by month horserace. That isn't the goal of this encyclopedia and that should not be your goal. Let's set a higher standard for ourselves. We want to be clear, grammatically correct, follow verified sources, and stay on-point. Michele Bachmann experienced a meteoric rise in the race. It was documented as such. As long as you understand wikipedia's policy of verifiability, you can understand that. It simply doesn't make sense to have a title like "rise in polls". It's one of the most subjective things anyone can write. It involves selecting polls over selected periods of time. It's also highly misleading and faulty because these polls were conducted with "likely republicans", different sample sizes, and by different organizations that may or may not be leaning certain ways. You have to remember that polls are biased by name recognition too. At this stage in the game, a lot of people aren't all that familiar with the candidates, and that's why it's important to list substantiated information like her profiles in Forbes and the New Yorker. A title like "rised in polls" would demean all the content in the section. It's not about the polls, it's about the rise in political profile.--Screwball23 talk 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then lets title it "Emergence of Michele Bachmann". SOXROX (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, but that doesn't make sense in this case. Emerged from where? It's not like she was in some hole and emerged. It has a really bad connotation too, as in "maybe Gaddafi will emerge from his hiding spot". Maybe the boogeyman will emerge from the darkness.--Screwball23 talk 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Emergence" makes sense, as she emerged from a niche to a nationwide stage. If you continue to revert to your unacceptable language, which you have yet to defend, I will report you for edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks my friend. You won't win your edit wars through threats and a refusal to listen. I have defended my view thoroughly, and am pleased to do so. I see no reason why the sources are being disregarded. I want more editors in on this discussion, and I think a fuller group of editors will bring a much needed open-mindedness here. --Screwball23 talk 01:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks here, just empty accusations, so let's just stick to the issue. Agreed that the language "meteoric rise" is unnecessarily strong language and violates policies like WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. Why not just call the section "Effectiveness of Bachmann Campaign" or "Growing popularity of Michele Bachmann"? These are verifiable statements, are supported by events like the Forbes rating, winning the Ames straw poll, etc. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I like "Growing popularity of Michele Bachmann". Per I, Jethrobot, it is accurate & verifiable. Not to mention more neutral & encyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Screwball, while I concur that her rise should be referenced, we need to use encyclopediac wording. Otherwise the sentence sounds like something out of a magazine. SOXROX (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Kinda shows in that I originally changed the wording to Soxrock's but I concur with the general consensus as said above. Kessy628 (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello. There was a request for a third opinion made - while it looks as though a consensus seems to be forming now, I'll chip in anyway. I agree that the term 'meteoric' is not very encyclopaedic - it is a subjective term. The fact that the media uses it does not change that, and it is likely that pro-Republican media will use it more than pro-Democrat, for example. I think the best suggestion so far comes from I, Jethrobot with "Growing popularity of Michele Bachmann". The rise can then be documented more extensively and objectively in the body of the text, with sources as appropriate. I hope this helps.—ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate(talk)(spy) 05:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree that "growing popularity" is way superior to the subjective "meteoric rise" as a section heading.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the third party opinion, and agree that "growing popularity" is superior to "meteoric rise". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I will accept the opinions of the third parties who participated here. Thank you for your resolve in hearing both me and Muboshgu. Please understand, it was disappointing for me to be in an argument where I was not being heard. I was also being accused of violating 4 or 5 policies at once without any clear rationale why. I don't want to beat this to death, but I certainly was not going to accept "rises in polls" or "emerges". I think "growing popularity" works, and I appreciate your help in bringing your solutions. Thanks.--Screwball23 talk 21:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Marriage Vow

Why does "Marriage Vow" link to the article on Bob_Vander_Plaats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Licinius Crassus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? SOXROX (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Marriage Vow under the pledges section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Licinius Crassus (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I got what you mean. I took out the link temporarily. You can see my edit note, but basically I can't find a page for the organization that the marriage vow is with, The Family Leader, so for now I just took out the link. If people can think of another page to link to then fine, but linking to a random person is just... well, random. Kessy628 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Criteria for Inclusion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A large discussion has gone on about the criteria for inclusion of a candidate, specifically what makes a candidate "notable." Currently, the only criteria is that the person has filed with the FEC and is notable enough to have a[REDACTED] page. The issue occurs from candidates such as Jonathon Sharkey, who is notable by[REDACTED] standards, however his campaign is not notable. Recent proposals have included the candidate meeting a certain polling in a certain number of national polls, the candidate's campaign being notable enough to have a[REDACTED] page, or the candidate being talked about in a certain number of national newspapers. This RfC is to attempt to get an outside opinion on the issue and hopefully create a new consensus. Kessy628 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the idea of creating a criteria is not the most intelligent way of doing this. I don't mean that anyone here is a little unintelligent (...ahem), but if the criteria is laid out, someone will use the criteria somehow, someway, to add an insignificant candidate. There is no other way around it. The 10-year test, the notability of the campaign, the activity and influence of the campaign, all of these just can't be quantified in # of news stories. If someone put out a threshold, it would allow people to think less and it unburdens them from the principles that[REDACTED] stands on. So instead of a person thinking, "I'm editing a page on the 2012 race", they suddenly look at rules on how many sources a person needs to be on the page, and then they can fight for an unimportant piece of trivia that no one will care about in 1 yr, let alone 10 yrs. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Information has to be notable and cited in good sources. It needs to be history, not news. Those are the principles that stand. The criteria is a failure from the start. Even if you could draft a set of criteria, they would have to be enforced just like the principles. And that's assuming you can get the criteria set. Don't forget, wikipedia's policies change all the time. Long stroy short, you're wasting your time, and I think if you want to have a productive time on wikipedia, you will want to move towards the principles SOXROX and I have cited instead of arguing about arbitrary criteria with people like William S. Saturn.--Screwball23 talk 22:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

^Seconded^ SOXROX (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of a clear criteria will result in a constant edit war. This page will be locked and updating would be nearly impossible. If there wasn't a criteria, how could anyone explain to Ken Grammer (the non-notable candidate that tried to put himself on this list) that he couldn't be listed? The current criteria works. Let me now explain it further to avoid any confusion. It includes three parts:

1. FEC registration or announcement of candidacy
2. Notability established per[REDACTED] standards (survived AFD)
3. Two source minimum coverage of the candidacy

I saw an interesting suggestion above of separating the candidates into "minor" and "major", but what constitutes "minor" or "major"? That requires a criteria as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I'm pushing for criteria is for stability. One thing I will agree with Saturn on is that the lack of some sort of criteria will result in unnecessary edit wars. Furthermore, I agree with what you've said in principle Screwball, but those policies can be read in multiple ways. Using those policies alone will result in needless problems on who does and does not fit into those. In short, I agree with you, but in reality it just wouldn't work in my opinion. Kessy628 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of minor and major Saturn I made that suggestion months ago. Sigh.... But anyways, I have to say if we do that, and we probably shouldn't it would have to be based on who participated in the debates. However, I think it should be very easy to determine who's relevant to an election. I know you'll bring up third party candidates, too, but you'll (hopefully) notice that in United States presidential election, 2008, there is a section titled 'Other Candidates' that mentions four third party candidates- Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr Green party nominee Cynthia McKinney, and Constitution party Chuck Baldwin. Why not do that here? We already have an article on 2012 third party and independent canddates, so we can do the same there. As for the major parties, we definitely should be able to tell the difference between a serious nominee and a not so serious nominee. I'm telling you, one day, future Wikipedians will look back in this archive see this discussion, and laugh. It's that pointless. SOXROX (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The only third party candidates included on the 2008 page were those that achieved ballot access in enough states to possibly win a majority of the electoral college. On this page, perhaps you could section "Candidates that participated in debates" and "Other candidates", but you would then have to account for the withdrawn candidates. Each section would need a section for withdrawn candidates, resulting in four tables. This seems unnecessary since we're not dealing with large numbers here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But why? Don't you understand the policy of WP:RECENTISM? Why are you wasting time from your busy life (...I'm taking a wild assumption here) to keep putting up non-notable candidates that have no short term or long term importance?--Screwball23 talk 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what recentism has to do with anything in this discussion. However, I do see it in the excessive emphasis and detail in the ill-conceived Fox News section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? Fox News is one of the higher rating cable networks, is highly political, and in this election, 4 of the leading GOP contenders worked there, and Palin continues to work there. Palin is under contract to the network and can't even appear on other news sources for interviews. The sources on this are from the NY Times, Politico, Huffington Post, etc., etc. Furthermore, I definitely passed your minimum 2 references for something to be notable. I want an apology from you. You actually deleted the section because, according to you, it's "completely irrelevant". That means, in plain English, you completely eliminated history from readers of wikipedia, because you want to spite me for following[REDACTED] policy against your ill-conceived "consensus established 2 yrs back". Your ignorance is unbelievable.--Screwball23 talk 23:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets not reduce ourselves to personal attacks guys. And at this point, I'm VERY close to removing Sharkey from the page due to the consensus in the discussion. Only the RfC holds me back. SOXROX (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on, the burden of proof is on Saturn to support its inclusion. We've established consensus on this, and I'm all for third party comments, but let's pull this and work on advancing the page. Its not to anyone's best interest to wait for another comment to take action - any more time on this and we'll all probably end up drinking blood. :-) --Screwball23 talk 02:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So what is the alternate criteria proposal? I say that we simply look to see if they are on any of the polls on the national polling page, and if they are on at least 2-3, then they could be included in the gallery. However, for minor candidates I think should still be listed on the page if they have a[REDACTED] article, just not in the gallery and in their own separate section. If they dropped out, we would just italicize the name, not create a "dropped out minor candidates" section. Thunderstone99 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Filing with the FEC or filing with their state government makes someone a candidate doesn't it? The idea of notability is reserved for standalone articles, not each piece of information added to an article. I would say an absolutely clear standard would simply be "They have filed with the FEC or their state", and leave it at that. Anything beyond that is open to too much interpretation. -- Avanu (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And at this point, I'm VERY close to removing Sharkey from the page due to the consensus in the discussion-- Not sure what "consensus" you are talking about SOXROX, considering there were only three participants besides the nominator in the RfC. So far, this discussion has been about creating separate tables for supposed major and minor candidates. Creating a "minor candidate" table seems like it would be too contentious and trying to figure out appropriate criteria would be troublesome. I'm not seeing a big issue about listing Sharkey as a candidate who withdrew in the same section as all the other candidates. This has nothing to do with his campaign, and merely reflects that 1) He filed the FEC paperwork and 2) that he is was a notable candidate by WP standards, and 3) that he announced he withdrawal. I support keeping Sharkey in the current Withdrew candidacy section with everyone else who has/will withdraw. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jethrobot, but if having Sharkey/McMillan/whoever in is too much of an issue for some people (I don't see why people are so upset over this) I support my idea of keeping minor candidates on the page on their own, non-gallery list. Thunderstone99 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I could support that. My main problem with Sharkey appearing as is is due to WP:DUE. Sharkey's campaign was nonexistent; he filed and that's all. To give him the same treatment as Rick Perry or Mitt Romney is giving him undue weight in my opinion. How about this proposal: candidates that have appeared in a major, official debate are counted as major candidates, while those that haven't are minor. This would mean that the following candidates would be counted as major by my count (and the debate main page): Cain, Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Huntsman, Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum. Johnson also would be included, as he participated in the first debate back in May, as would McCotter, who has been invited to the CNN debate in September. Minor candidates would be everyone else who meets the current criteria, as Saturn described above, which would include everyone from Roemer and Karger to Sharkey. By doing this, there's set criteria for inclusion as a major candidate, however there aren't really any arguments on who is counted as an actual candidate. Any complaints about this idea? Kessy628 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems good, as long as the minor ones are still on the page, just not with their own gallery. Also, if a minor candidate drops out, we should just italicize the name, not create whole new table. Thunderstone99 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Kessy's idea definitely is the best solution. And yes Thunderstone, we shouldn't give a gallery to minor candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just a listing, no gallery needed. And I agree with Thunderstone, just italicize the minor candidates who drop out, vs. making a new list/gallery/table/whatever. Kessy628 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal seems reasonable, but I don't quite see why the minor candidates cannot be presented in a gallery. Every listing on this page comes in the gallery form.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUE is why. Having the minor candidates as prominent as the major ones is giving undue weight to them, and then there's no point of having minor and major candidate listings separate. Kessy628 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So individuals such as Gary Sinise that only received speculation should be presented in a gallery, but not actual candidates? The undue argument doesn't make much sense since the so-called "minor candidates" will already be separated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that only the major candidates would be on the main page for the election, with the minor list being on this page only. Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this gives undue weight to Sharkey's campaign, because this isn't about his campaign. It's about his candidacy in the primary, and he was a candidate just like all the others. The fact that his campaign is minimal shouldn't matter when it comes to simply moving him from a "current candidates" to a "withdrawn" table. The fact that his picture is there also isn't giving undue weight, because his picture alone isn't representative of campaign-related content. It only serves to identify the candidate. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, keep the picture. Personally I think a gallery should really only be important for major candidates currently running or having withdrawn, and everything else (minor candidates, speculated candidates, declined candidates, and previously speculated candidates) could just be lists, or at least galleries hidden by default (though that I don't know how to do wiki-code wise). What matters more to me is making the distinction between major and minor candidates as per a criteria. Kessy628 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

@Saturn: Actually, I was wondering if reducing the declined/ceased speculation lists to just lists, not galleries (if not deleting them altogether) might not be a good idea for space reasons. How many other presidential articles have lists of this sort? In the 2008 one, only Cheney and Rice are mentioned as declining to run. Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't just delete the speculated candidates. As I've said time and time again, this is not a scoreboard. If space becomes a problem (and it may if Screwball continues to add minute details), then the speculated candidates could be moved to a separate page. I see no valid reason to not illustrate candidates, especially when we have pictures for them.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speculated, I agree, should be kept. Declined and previous candidates could probably be turned into lists or deleted, as they're known to not have anything to do directly with the campaign anymore. Kessy628 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The declined candidates were once speculated candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement there, but key word is once. If they're speculated to enter the race (as Perry and Paul Ryan were), they can be readded, but to keep them now is just unnecessary in my opinion. Still, at this point I'm open to compromise, if only to get this whole thing finally finished. Kessy628 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speculated candidates are only important because they may enter the race later. Once they decline/speculation ceases, they no longer can affect the race any more than any other prominent politician. There are only three speculated candidates left, they'll declare or deny within the month I bet. Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems you're looking at this as if it's a scoreboard. That is the wrong perspective. This is an historical article. In the matter of historical interest it must be noted that certain individuals were speculated to run and that said individuals chose not to run. It's more or less a reflection of the media and modern society's taste in candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so turn it into a list. Fine as a historical perspective maybe it would be of interest to have that in it. But also as a historical perspective the primary focus should be on the actual campaign and those in it, not those who were speculated to enter but didn't for whatever reason. Make it a drop-down list sort-of-thing, but it doesn't need to be a full gallery; that's just unnecessary. Kessy628 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Saturn, are you for real? You want to come here, disregard everything that was said about the 10-year test and the fact that this is history, not news, and suddenly you want to play the angle that Jonathon Sharkey was a historical figure that reflected the media and modern society's taste in candidates? that is absolute delusion. I don't even think you believe what you're writing. I think you just hate losing arguments and have ownership issues. And I have no idea how you of all people can even claim that I am adding minute details. I mean, look in the mirror. The fox news section is absolutely important, and you wanted to delete that because it was "irrelevant". But suddenly, candidates like Jonathon Sharkey are "history" and a reflection of "modern society's tastes" Give me a break. You're full of shit and you know it.--Screwball23 talk 00:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Screwball23, your comments are inflammatory. Discussion like this is unhelpful. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Sharkey Withdrawl

Jonathan Sharkey withdrew from the race yet has not been added to the withdrawn candidates section. We never came to the consensus of removing him based on the notability of his candidacy, thus he should be added to the withdrawn candidates section. David copperson (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for his inclusion. Please see the lengthy discussion above. And don't forget the burden of proof is on the person adding the content.--Screwball23 talk 18:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul Section

There are individual sections dedicated to the growing popularity of Michele Bachmann and the entrance of Rick Perry because these events are influential to the Republican race. Should there not also be a section dedicated to the strong and enthusiastic support for Ron Paul and how it has been shaping straw polls throughout the race. Also a section dedicated to the alleged media's treatment of Ron Paul, which has been dominating media headlines for some time?David copperson (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the media attention to his lack of attention has been gaining, and it's been on mainstream stories. I support the addition of that material, and I have mentioned it. However, the straw polls idea is not something I've seen much of. It's also going to be months and months before we see all the straw polls come through, and aside from CPAC and Ames, I don't know what importance those polls have in the long term. Please remember that the caucuses will begin next year, and when delegates start piling in, the relevance of a few straw polls will be moot.--Screwball23 talk 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but Paul's performance at Ames is 1 of the factors that pushed Pawlenty out. I know there's 1 sentence in the Bachmann section that talks about Paul coming in a close second to Bachmann, but if a Paul section was made that would deserve at least a sentence or 2 there. Kessy628 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I requested page protection because all of this Sharkey business needs to develop consensus here. I apologize if this prevents newer sections from being improved for the next few days, but this edit warring has got to stop. Get your act together, folks. And don't even think about sidetracking the RfC with "it's the wrong version" crap. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-18-david-duke_x.htm

• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• High-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment