Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Johnson has a date

It's April 21 for Gary Johnson. Should this be mentioned in the article somewhere? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be mentioned in this article yet, especially since according to this article Johnson himself is not confirming the information and denies that the reports came from his people. The article you linked to, however, can and should be cited in the Republican primaries article.--JayJasper (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He has confirmed his intent now. I would add hi but don't know how to include a picture.BenW (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama

Here's a possible source for Obama's campaign: [1] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He's just announced his re-election bid 'today'. Now, he belongs in the candidates section. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The text of the Wikipedia article currently reads: "Incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama will run for a second and final term during this election." Surely it would be more correct to say: "Barack Obama, who is eligible for a second and final term as President, will seek nomination to be the Democratic Party's candidate in this election". Headhitter (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound more correct, so I made the change on the page.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Updates no more

What happened to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Missouri is NOT a swing state

If we are going to use the criteria Democrat 2000,2004, and 2008 and Republican 2000,2004, and 2008, Missouri is NOT a swing state. Just because it was close in 2008 does not make it a swing state. Leave Missouri under "Safe Republican" or completely change the criteria for listing the states that have changed electoral votes. S51438 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the close results and the attention given by both parties, I'd say Missouri is a swing state, though as you say it went for the Republican the last three presidential elections. See swing state for graphic representations and Missouri bellwether for more specific info. I think that the notations of 2000, 2004 and 2008 in that section need to be changed to make it clear that we aren't using that as the sole criteria for determining what is a "safe" state. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that the above user would label this a "contentious edit" when the OP was correctly in line with the hidden text.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that hidden text before. Just because it's in hidden text doesn't make it the right way to sort these states, and I have a contention with that. What WP:RS use that definition? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's based on the outcomes from the past three elections. Under this criteria, moving Missouri to "swing state" is factually wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Under that criteria, yes, it would be wrong to have Missouri listed as a swing state. But my question is: why are we using that criteria in the first place? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can assume that it's for a static verification since the section is not about swing states.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about swing states in any great detail, but the section is called "swing states" and it's important that we be sure of our definition of that term. According to this recent polling, Missouri is in reach for Obama, potentially. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, sorta resolved. The titles are better but I remain unconvinced that Missouri isn't a swing state, even though it went "red" the last three times. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I added "remaining" instead of "swing".--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I took out the other mentions of the word "swing". It's good for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Apparently he has filed to form an exploratory committe. I assume we need another source for that. I also have hearsay acknowledgement from him thru a third party that he IS planning to run, altho I would imagine that doesnt mean anything.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The source say he's filled out the paperwork but hasn't announced his candidacy yet. We should wait until he makes it "official" before we change his listing on the page, IMO.--Newbreeder (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, no complaints from me. --Metallurgist (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Now he's been listed as running, even though he hasn't announced or set up an exploratory committee - he's just made a possible fund-raising account. Should he still be listed as running? Tiller54 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. He seems to be in the same boat as Newt Gingrich. We need to have a serious discussion about these "fundraising committees" that are not filed with the FEC.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate section for "announced formal exploration of potenitial candidacy" like on the republican primary page.--141.152.79.93 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just yesterday, in Florida, I saw a very formal and official looking bumper sticker for his 2012 campaign. Of course, don't know if it is real or wishful. --Blumrosen (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can make a bumpersticker. Somewhere around the house I've got a "Dean/Obama 2008" bumpersticker somebody sent me around December of 2004. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty

He says he's running. I've bolded his name. The source is here: http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/tim-pawlenty-says-im-running-for-president-and-comments-on-trump-as-a-possible-opponent/ Soxrock24 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the entire article:

"I'm running for President," said Pawlenty, who has formed an exploratory committee but has yet to formally declare. "I'm not putting my hat in the ring rhetorically or ultimately for Vice President. I'm focused on running for President." (Pawlenty said he would make a formal announcement in the coming weeks.)

Pawlenty later clarified: "I just hope that the country will take the full measure of all the candidates and make an informed decision, I think they will...I've got an exploratory committee up and running and we'll have a final or full announcement on that in the coming weeks. It won't be too much longer. But everything is headed in that direction."

He's not declared yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay that's fine by me, but can that be added as a source for Pawlenty? It shows thaat he is a very possible candidate in the election. Soxrock24 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ole Savior discussion

Should Ole Savior be included (see [2])? He satisfies the criteria of being officially declared and of having his own WP article, so in my opinion the answer is yes; I think we ought to err on the side of inclusiveness. Anyone else have any opinions? Difluoroethene (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Must disagree- if we put him on the list, we would have to the same from Andy Martin, another declared perennial candidate who much more notable- Savior has a very short article, while Martin's is pretty developed. However, I oppose putting either of them, because to be mentioned on this list, you should have held political office, been a major party candidate for public office, be a popular political pundit (Cain), or be a famous tycoon (Trump). Since Savior and Martin are none of these, they do not belong on the list I would even favor removing Terry, Karger, and McMillan for that reason- they are not relevant candidates- they do not appear on any polls, and if they did, they would get few votes So, NO Soxrock24 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of what America is all about, though, is that you don't have to be a career politician, a "popular political pundit" or a "famous tycoon" (at least in theory) in order to run for office. Americans pride ourselves on the openness of our political system. Removing Terry and Karger while leaving Cain also seems more than a little arbitrary; the former two have dedicated followings as well. It just doesn't seem very American to exclude candidates from a list based on an arbitrary standard, no matter how much of a long-shot said candidates might be. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course he should be included, he has filed with the FEC and has a current wikipedia article. The above user "Soxrock24" appears to be ignorant of consensus. However, his "standards" do provide a good laugh. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We can determine notability here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Savior.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to add states asking for birth certificate

Can someone add that for the first time ,state govt's are pushing bills to have the candidates show their credentials ,before their name comes on the ballot. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965 I though it was interesting as it was for the first time this is happening.

Those are not reliable sources --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

arizona: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.htm
Connecticut: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00391-R00-SB.htm
georgia: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display.aspx?Legislation=32030
indiana:http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/IN/IN0114.1.html
maine:http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP002701.asp
missouri:http://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.htm
montana:http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/HB0205.htm
nebraska: http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=11970
oklahoma:http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB91_int.rtf
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12SB/SB540_int.rtf
texas:http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00295I.htm
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00529I.htm

UPDATE:Both Arizona senate and house of representatives have passed a bill requiring candidates to produce brth certificate.It awaits governor signature.If it passes i think it should be included in the article with a color coded map. 117.200.35.236 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Criteria of inclusion

Despite the assertion by several people that simply having an article is enough for a candidate to be added to this main list, such candidates such as Andy Martin, and Ole Savior, should not be listed, based on precedent. In 2008, minor candidates were agreed upon to not appear in the main article, but are rather listed in a text list of minor candidates in their party's respective article. In the very least, there should at least be a polling criteria, of either 1% or simply being polled at all. Perennial candidates deserve to be listed, but there should be a set criteria to prevent the list from growing on the excessive. This is not about neutrality, this is about making the article easier to navigate, and following precedent. Not every candidate who files for President should be listed in the main list on this article, but should be listed in the 'Other candidates' section of the party's candidates list. Gage (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In no way should we list every candidate that filed, however, the criteria of notability is surpassed if the candidate has a wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: The consensus standards listed above were discussed extensively and heavily supported at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008, where discussions on the matter took place. The main 2008 page does not follow this standard for unknown reasons; it definitely should and does not affect space. Perhaps at one time they were all listed but maybe anonymous users removed them one by one and we did not notice. I know for a fact (after a brief look at the history) that this was done for Alan Keyes and Evan Bayh.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In those instances Evan Bayh and Alan Keyes should be readded. Additionally, I seriously doubt that they were removed one by one by random users. Simply having an article should not be the main criteria for being listed on the main page. There needs to be an established criteria that actually makes sense within the parameters of Wikipedia. Listing 20 candidates just because they happen to have an article, and paid to file for President doesn't indicate any significance in the race. Gage (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It doesn't significantly affect space, plus there's not a professional class to draw from in politics; to do so would violate NPOV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove Constitution Party from Prospective candidates

It seems pointless to have a whole section that says there are no candidates for this party. If we include it for the Constitution party, we might as well make a blank section for the Boston Tea Party, Socialism and Liberation Party, Reform Party, and a myriad of other minor parties. Unless someone can find a news articles mentioning that it is unusual or something for the Constitution party having no one running yet. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

True. Support, any objections? Soxrock24 (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no objections, so that section has been removed.--Newbreeder (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes of Mind

The electoral process is not static. To accomodate some of the changes that happen along the way, sections have been added to (1) list those candidates who first announced they would not run, and then announced they were in the race, and (2) list those candidates who entered the race, and later withdrew from the campaign.--Blumrosen (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that section Soxrock24 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone deleted them because they have no content. I agree with that person, and I think there is no point in having these sections until someone actually does either of those two things. No point in having blank sections Thunderstone99 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

John Bolton

The sources for John Bolton are way too old- the newest is from November 2010. Are there newer sources for him? Soxrock24 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just added new sources from his listing on the republican primaries, 2012 page. Even so, it appears that his "expiration date" is tomorrow (April 26) according to the 1 month rule. Some newer sources will need to be to found if he is to remain listed much longer.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found and added a newer source, which extends his listing expiration a few more days anyway.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources for Rudy Giuliani are old as well- the newest from January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Roemer

According to the FEC website, Buddy Roemer has already filed. Should his name be in bold? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He is still listed as having filed an exploratory committee, so his name shouldn't be bolded just yet.--JayJasper (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnson

Should Gary Johnson's name be in bold? It currently is, but he isn't listed as having filed with the FEC yet. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe he made an official announcement that he is running, none of this toe-in-the-water stuff we hear typically, so I think it should be. Is it possible the FEC website simply hasn't been updated? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He announced only a few days ago. You'll notice at the top at that FEC list, it says "Each individual who is a candidate for federal office must file an FEC Form 2 within 15 days of becoming a candidate." So he still has another 10 days or so to file. Plus, I think it takes a few days after a candidate files the paperwork before it shows up on the list. Having two reliable sources stating that he declared should suffice for now. So, yes, the name should be bolded.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He's listed with FEC now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidate Galleries

The galleries listed under the candidates section are completely unnecessary here. They provide no additional information and just take up space and loading time for slower connections. Can anyone explain why they're here? Timmeh 22:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the tradition for all Presidential elections. It is certainly necessary because not only do all the US election articles have alleries, but if you looks at foreign election articles, tey have them too. Soxrock24 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Other articles having them does not make them necessary. It just means the other articles also have galleries that serve no informational purpose. Timmeh 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, this may be a good idea but to be consistent you would have to remove the galleries from all presidential election articles. Let's have a discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections to gain a broad consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hightower

Ralph Nader has just indicated that he is trying to get Jim Hightower (and several other candidates too, none of whom he names specifically) to enter the Democratic primary, in this article. So far only one source has materialized (the one I just linked to), however I expect more sources to the same effect will appear in the next day or so. When that happens, Hightower can be added to our Prospective Candidates list. Difluoroethene (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its already done. BTW, how come you're contributing so much when your user and user talk pages say you have retired? Soxrock24 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben76266's changes

I don't think the recent removal of sourced candidates from the Republican and Democratic party sections was a good idea. Putting up a requirement that a candidate needs to have gained 1% in at least one poll is more than a little arbitrary, and removing Fred Karger on those grounds is especially questionable as Fred Karger himself has provided a list of polls in which he does get some support, including one New Hampshire college straw poll he actually won. I'd stick with what I said earlier, about how it doesn't seem to be very American to exclude candidates from the list due to subjective criteria, when Americans pride ourselves on the openness of our political system. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. We already have a very good NPOV standard in place that has worked for many years: announcement of candidacy or FEC filing, and wikipedia article. The changes should be reverted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Ben's edits, which had no consensus behind them, should all be undone. Thunderstone99 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Republican Candidates

There are a few problems with the GOP Prospective Candidates section. First, John Bolton's sources expire tomorrow due to the one month rule. It should be easy to find another. Second Rudy Giuliani's sources are from January or earlier. There definitely should be newer ones. Lastly the sources for Thad McCotter are invalid. One just mentions he got one percent of polling in ONE poll. The second simply talks about how he would be a good candidate- it's basically an endorsement. Neither specifically mention speculation about him running, or him even saying he's considering it or not. Tom cap off, find newer sources for Bolton and Giuliani, and probably remove McCotter. SOXROX (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the "one month rule"?»NMajdan·talk 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the rule according to the 'John Bolton" section above that states all sources must be less then a month old to appear in the prospective candidates section SOXROX (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I added newer sources on Bolton and Giuliani. The "one month rule" was established a few months ago on the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article. We use it here as well to maintain consistency. I saw that the commented-out guidelines had not been changed to reflect that, so I fixed that.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Definitely makes sense.»NMajdan·talk 17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Huckabee

Mike Huckabee : I just added him. Found it odd that he wasn't on there: does someone know something I don't? If not, can someone add him to the gallery? --Schreiber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schreibergasse (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your good faith edit because Huckabee is already listed on the prospective Republican candidate list, and has been for some time. He will not be placed on the main candidate list (or the gallery) list until if and when he announces his candidacy or the formation of official exploratory measures.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He just announced tonight that he isn't going to run. SOXROX (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party candidate

Apparently there is a guy named Grady Warren running for president as a Tea Party candidate who has received quite a bit of publicity due to his extreme views and videotaped rants (for one thing, he has openly declared "Teahad" on President Obama and supports taking away minorities' right to vote). His website is here, and apparently Anonymous has endorsed him ([3]). Just a little heads-up; he may or may not be notable enough for an article yet. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to be included, the candidate must have an aritlce, accoridng to the criteria we've determined on the talk page. SOXROX (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For certain peculiar values of "to endorse", anyway. "This is in line with the factions of Anonymous who find this kind of shit hilarious and worthy of support." --Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He may be a troll. I know wanting to take away minorities' right to vote doesn't represent most Tea Partiers. Trolling, of course, would keep with Anonymous. J390 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He may be a form of performance art, like the old "Reagan for Shaw" and "Ladies Against Women" groups; in which case, the minority vote thing may be a reflection of the perception that the Tea Party's real raison d'etre is their distress over a non-white in the White House and the general rise of non-white influence across their beloved WASP America. Or he may be a genuine nutbar using the Tea Party as a vehicle to spread his hatred. Or he may believe that he is saying what other Tea Party folks believe but dare not say out loud. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidates who are officially running

Alright, the first official GOP debate was last week. These five people have, for all intents and purposes, officially stepped into the race for president. Gary Johnson Rick Santorum Tim Pawlenty Ron Paul and Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich also says he's going into the race, so maybe we could add him. People who step into the race officially should be highlighted. J390 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Alright, I thought the debate was between people already running. However, Johnson and Paul are already in the race. I guess I was wrong. J390 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop unbolding the formally declared candidates.

Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum attended the presidential debate. This is a formal declaration of one's candidacy. A non-candidate does not attend a debate for candidates. Stop undoing my edits. Macarion (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus states that only candidates who have FORMALLY DECLARED their candidacies can be bolded. You are disregarding consensus which breaks Wikipedia rules. Seriously stop. One more, and the three revert rule kicks in. SOXROX (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that a formally declared candidate is one who has made an unequivocal announcement of one's candidacy, as opposed to one who has filed the paperwork but presently identifies as being in the "exploratory" phase.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

He's running: [4]. 70.99.104.234 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe

Olympia Snowe is also said to be one of the possible candidates for the Republican party. She is the senior United States Senator from Maine and a member of the Republican Party. Snowe has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes, including whether to end filibusters. Senator Olympia Snowe

Said by who?Ratemonth (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Randall Terry from the candidate's gallery

It's absurd that's he's even there. He's not a serious candidate.

Every four years, there's hundreds of nutjobs who run for president non-seriously, just looking for publicity. Are we supposed to list them all? Why stop at Randall Terry? Add Mickey Mouse, and Joey the mechanic, too.

His inclusion takes away a lot of this article's credibility. I wouldn't doubt it if he added himself into this article. --68.197.190.56 (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

that article was created in 2004, so it's not like the John Davis article that was recently deleted so that it would be removed from the candidates section. Personally, we need to get Jonathon Sharkey removed from the republican section before we remove Terry from the democrats. However, I definitely understand your point. Have you heard ANYONE refer to Randall Terry in the news? Nope. However, according tothe policy here, any candidate with an article should be listed. Do I agree with it? Meh, not really. However, that's policy and I'm sticking by it. But if you want to try to delete his article, create an acount and put it up for deletion. SOXROX (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Trump will not run <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_en_tv/us_trump2012>. Can someone please add it to the article?69.225.84.162 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already there. See: United States presidential election, 2012#Republican 2. —Diiscool (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as lame as it sounds, he still won't dismiss the idea of an indy run and should probably be included there as a potential candidate still: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-01/news/29627533_1_donald-trump-celebrity-apprentice-public-smackdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themostcasualobserver (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon Sharkey

I have removed Jonathon Sharkey from the list. The need to come up with a durable standard for who to include does not mean that we check our brains at the door. This guy does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. He has been to jail recently for intimidating a judge, apparently has relationships with teenage girls, and styles himself as "the Impaler" due to his participation in the vampire subculture. The political reality is that this guy is going nowhere. Judging from the press coverage, everyone else knows that [5]. We should exercise sound editorial judgment rather than stick our heads in the sand.--Chaser (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have "editorial judgment". We are consistent and stick to the principle of NPOV. Edit reverted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

On editorial judgment, see references in BLP policy, MoS, and Arb-Com decision. NPOV also requires due weight, which we're not giving by listing this guy along with serious candidates that have gotten serious press coverage. See below.--Chaser (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Common sense can best be applied in the cases above regarding the reliability of sources, but that is not a problem on this article. You are suggesting the removal of an individual (that you believe is notable by wikipedia standards) based on your own judgment (original research) of their "seriousness". This kind of original research has no place on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We also rely on, well, reliable sources and I would say that the Federal Election Commission is a reliable source. He's file paperwork. Almost everything Chaser has said above is his own opinion or could be considered WP:OR. I agree with the revert. —Diiscool (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR is addressed at logical reasoning in articles, not at content inclusion. Lots of joke and far outlier candidates file paperwork [6] (which is a primary source). This guy does not make anyone's list of serious candidates: N.Y. Times, ABC News, Washington Post, CBS News. CNN doesn't ask about the vampire candidate in polls [7]. We should rely on the aforementioned-reliable sources' lists of candidates in compiling our own list. Including everyone who is able to get press coverage masks the reason they got press coverage in the first place. Is it because he is a serious candidate or because he's an amusing joke? Watch the video in that last link. Clearly the latter.--Chaser (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The only way to exclude an individual from this page (as based on consensus) is through a lack of notability which is determined at AFD. The "seriousness" of a candidate is 100% opinion and has no bearing on whether an individual is a candidate or not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response ignores all the sources I just cited. Is there any press coverage of this guy that isn't dripping with sarcasm?--Chaser (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes no difference. Is he notable or not?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please provide a link to the discussion where consensus was established.--Chaser (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The above thread should direct you where the discussion took place. If you have a proposal for inclusion in line with wikipedia's policies and based on something concrete rather than arbitrary, please let us see it so we can discuss it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the first list of three in this thread? A functioning website would be a start. Ads. Issue statements besides his 2008 blogspot (what does this guy believe in besides torturing criminals?). A current campaign committee and not just a year-old filing about one. Evidence of an actual campaign and not just a joke filing. To me these inclusion criteria pre-suppose that the candidate is currently running a campaign. I can find no evidence that this guy is actually running for president now. His filings, unlike everyone else listed, are from over a year ago. Likewise, the only press coverage from the last twelve months is this ABC video from January (how much other news coverage of a real campaign have you seen that contains that much laughter?). All the other people listed are running active campaigns. That's what makes them candidates. Sharkey is not.--Chaser (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay so it appears you are suggesting a criteria that requires: a functioning website (need definition of functioning and of what constitutes a website), advertisements (need to explain how to find advertisements), a "current campaign committee" (need definition of current), and a gauge of the candidate's seriousness through the amount of laughter in press coverage. Also you need to determine if this also applies to third party candidates. Sounds like a lot of work just to remove someone you think is a joke. What's next? Removing Fred Karger because someone thinks his lifestyle is a joke? Maybe we could find a YouTube video of someone laughing at him? I guess we could keep adding these stipulations to remove people we don't like or maybe we could keep it simple and not cause edit warring and needless discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't seriously proposing criteria. The point is that this guy has none of the characteristics of a real candidate for political office, or even a real protest candidate.--Chaser (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but under current consensus your "characteristics" are inaccurate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, did you happen to make this edit? If so, that proposed standard is arbitrary rather than concrete.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No.--Chaser (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May I mention that the only reason he has an article is because of how weird he is? Most of his article is about his beliefs and legal troubles.All of the others listed are into politics. McMillan and Martin are perennial candidates. Karger is a gay rights activist (political), Terry is a pro-lifer (political), Cainis a businessman with a large political following, and Sharkey is the oddball running as a joke. It is an insult to the integrit of wikipedia to have a guy listed as a "vampire" underneath former governor Romney and former senator Santorum. It really is ridiculous. Just because he is notable enough to have an article, it doesn't mean he should be mentioned here. In fact, anyone who has been put up for AFD three times should definitely not be here, since that notability has repeatedly been questioned. Besides, he fails WP:POLITICIAN.SOXROX (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately consensus says otherwise; the coverage is political in nature. And remember, there is no elite class in politics in the United States. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We have numbers at 2-2 in this discussion and no indication that the criteria named above apply to joke candidates with inactive campaigns. Where is the consensus to include Sharkey?--Chaser (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote. The criteria is the consensus. Also, please do not commit BLP violations by labeling individuals as jokes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I say include Sharkey.Ratemonth (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, evryone take a deep breath here. Let's compromise. We can go by the criteria William S. Saturn continues to uphold, and keep certain minor candidates in a another section called "other minor candidates. We can vote on which candidates to put in each section. Is that fair? SOXROX (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the following thread in the Republican candidates talk page seems to reveal something about the new criteria-

Should we have a specific criteria to make the list of candidates? Currently we seem to allow anyone who says they are running onto the list. Such a rules would not have to become effective right away, maybe after the first debate. Would it make sense to limit this to something like:

Any candidate who: A) Files with the FEC, OR B) Says they are running AND A) Registers at 1% in any poll, OR B) Holds or has held high office or has held a significant non political position, OR C) Appears on the ballot in at least two states, OR D) Appears in a televised debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I vote yes also. Those are very reasonable terms. If we don't limit it, we're going to have a mess of an article with a bunch of irrelevant fourth and fifth tier names cluttering up the page. --Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC) We already have a specific criteria: FEC filing or formal declaration; Wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Should the criteria be amended?AWatiker (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I vote for the terms you proposed above.--Ai.kefu (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

SOXROX (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, if we used that criteria, we would have to look at the 1% threshold. This would move Randall Terry, Fred Karger, Jimmy McMillan, Andy Martin, Roy Moore, and Sharkey to a minor cndidates section. SOXROX (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me first say that I understand the discomfort in listing Sharkey, but we need to value consistency and readability above comfort. He meets our long-discussed policy-based standards that are straightforward and clear. The third party basis for this standard is the most reliable source for candidates: the FEC, which makes no major/minor distinction. Finally, on this page, additional sections would only be necessary if there were too many candidates in one section making navigation difficult. However, that is not the case here, rather, additional sections would only add unnecessary clutter to navigate around.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

===Request for comment===

• Yes
• No: Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, vampire and wrestler, is not a serious candidate. There is no indication he is actually running a campaign. The criteria last used and discussed in 2008, if they even apply now, do not apply to a joke candidate that has no website, no ads, and no current issue statements. The only thing in recent news coverage about Sharkey describes him as being near the bottom of the insanity barrel. The press coverage of him is all tongue in cheek [8] [9] (the latter story is about a number of joke candidates). Listing Sharkey detracts from our legitimacy as a reference source.--Chaser (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your personal assessment of candidates is completely OR and has no place here. Furthermore, nothing is detracted by being consistent and following NPOV, especially since the presence of one candidate does not in any way affect the listing of others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Include any and all candidates. Ratemonth (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• No. We should only include at least vaguely serious candidates, not utter jokes. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how you differentiate a "serious" candidate from a "joke", and why notable individuals that you consider to be "jokes" should be excluded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Common sense, maybe? Or are you not smart enough to know that someone calling himself a vampire and currently on probation is a joke? Or perhaps you are a vampire yourself and actually do consider him a serious candidate. 77 people have filed paperwork, but we don't list the rest of them. Just because a few news outlets found this guy ridiculous enough to write a brief story about him does not set him apart from the rest of the nobody filers. Also, you called him a "non-notable figure" in the AFD, thereby invalidating your comment. This article used as source also writes about presidential hopefuls who were born in Israel, don't bother with experience, and won't smile. Why don't we list them too? Because they're jokes, just like Sharkey, who should be permanantly removed. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe he is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, however, consensus says otherwise. Therefore, he must be included. As I've said, this is not the proper forum to determine notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, this is completely unnecessary. There is already a consistent standard being used. We can't just remove candidates that we don't like. The only way he can be removed under the current consensus is if his article is deleted or if the standards are changed through consensus. A vote of exclusion without a proposed standard is pointless.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• No As I have said, this lowers the article's integrity. SOXROX (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment from newcomers to the issue

Issue Should Jonathon Sharkey be listed as a candidate for the Republican nomination? Any comments from people that have not already spoken on this issue?--Chaser (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Voting on this page to exclude a candidate that meets the criteria for inclusion is not constructive. I direct editors to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (3rd nomination) to determine the notability of Mr. Sharkey. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One, there is already basically a consensus on the deletion, and two, you and I can't comment on this because we've already contributed to this discussion. SOXROX (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• No If per some convention Sharkey is a viable item for this article, then I say WP:IGNORE the convention. No reputable source considers him a serious candidate, neither should we. It's situations like this that diminish Wikipedia's reputation as a valuable resource. Lionel (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should certain notable individuals be included while other notable individuals should not? Should references to Pat Paulsen be removed from the 1968 election page? If Stephen Colbert had filed with the FEC should he have been removed from the 2008 page? Perhaps the difference between those two and Sharkey is notability, but if Sharkey is a non-notable individual, why does he have a wikipedia page and survive deletion? Third party candidates have no chance of winning and are not considered "serious" by the mainstream media, so should they be excluded as well?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• No Not a serious candidate, we're free to use our editorial judgement on issues like this. RxS (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If consensus is that he is notable but should not be listed on this page, then we need to add an editing note that every candidate with a wikipedia article except Jonathon Sharkey should be included on the page. Agree?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• No. And this question is a good illustration of why Wikipedia is not, or at least should not be, news. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That makes absolutely no sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak yes. While I agree with all of those that have said Jonathan Sharkey should not be included as a matter of logic and sense, the fact is that we have reached a criteria by consensus and he meets that criteria. If a candidate meets the criteria, the candidate must be included. It is as simple as that. However, as we all know that he shouldn't be included, we should all agree that the criteria is broken if he meets it. Therefore, I think a more constructive exercise would be to revise the criteria so as to exclude these types of extreme fringe candidates. Perhaps the criteria should be broadened from "two reliable sources" to "two reliable sources and at least 2% support in a national or early state poll." - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Indeed, it is safe to say that Sharkey will not win the Republican primary. It is also quite safe to say that Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Roy Moore, Buddy Roemer and Rick Santorum will not win (none of them have won a poll, real or straw, statewide or nationwide). And yet the discussion is about Sharkey, who to the best of my knowledge has publicly declared his candidacy and filed with the FEC (as apposed to Moore, Roemer and Santorum, who haven't publicly declared). It is also pretty safe to say that no one who isn't Obama or the Republican primary winner will win the presidential elections, nor carry any state. Yet the article mentions Randall Terry (Wikipedia doesn't even have an article for Democratic primary's polls), Libertarian party, Green party, Socialist party and two independents. I'm honestly not sure what the fuss is about; if there were a section or a paragraph about Sharkey, I'd see what the issue is, but we're talking about barely one line. Rami R 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the comparison would be more persuasive if Sharkey got more serious attention. The press covered him twice last year when he declared [10] [11] and in January, April and May this year. If he were a prospective candidate, he wouldn't meet the criteria for listing. Does mailing a piece of paper to the FEC really give this guy that much more legitimacy?--Chaser (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes.The current standard seems pretty clear - filing with the FEC. The line "perennial candidate" speaks volumes about his likelihood of winning the nomination, much less the election. While Wikipedia is encyclopedic, I believe that people on lists like this, or the number of candidates who run for election and lose (and don't have their own page), still should be included in an elected official's electoral history. So, I don't think notability or "seriousness" have an effect on their inclusion on this list. A formal declaration with the FEC serves as sufficient notice for inclusion.--Enos733 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak yes per PictureProvince, who said it better than I could have. I agree with his suggestion to change the criteria, too.Khazar (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes' per Enos733. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• I vote for a third way--Has anyone ever looked at how politics1 lists candidates? They have a picture gallery, like this article has for "serious" candidates (Romney, Paul, et al). Underneath that it also lists minor and fringe candidates (Sharkey, McMillan, etc...)so that they are still included but clearly demarcated as being of a different stature.Themostcasualobserver (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Politics1's list of candidates is shown here: http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htmThemostcasualobserver (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I like the third way idea. After all, all the political parties listed are notable and have articles, but we don't just indiscriminately list them all in alphabetical order on the page. Rather, we give WP:DUE WEIGHT to the 2 major parties and list them first. Likewise with the templates. No one seems to complain about this being a violation of NPOV. Certainly we can come up with a similar standard for listing the candidates.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Politics1 is a questionable source, plus, there is no reason to reorganize the candidates since size is not an issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• * I wasn't intending politics1 to be used as a "source" I was merely using it's template as an example of a way to satisfy the competing desires to include ALL candidates vs. the desires of many to, if not remove, at least relegate, minor candidates to a lesser status in the various Prez race articlesThemostcasualobserver (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heck, this very article is already making such a distinction by listing 3rd parties after the Dems and the GOP. So it's really not a stretch to make a similar distinction within the two main parties.Themostcasualobserver (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely different issue based on party notability, which is not disputed. I want to know where you draw the line. Are you willing to label a former governor (Roemer) as fringe?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No I would not label Roemer as fringe, or even Johnson, I would probably still have Karger in the main list for now. I am not as concerned about polling at this point as a lot of folks are. But a vampire, Yeah I'd say he probably fits the bill. Someone had listed 3 types of candidates(paraphrasing) 1) politicians with credible resumes (poll numbers or not) 2)non politicians with credible resumes/ and or the money and notoriety to demand attn. (think Perot or Trump)3) everyone else that noone has heard of. I think that list is a good jumping off point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themostcasualobserver (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That is all based on your opinions. What is credible? In American politics, any citizen can run for office, there's no elite class. So a standard based on that will only led to constant disputes over who is credible and who is not.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well looking at other historical articles offers some clue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1992 This article lists Agran and Loughlin, but does not have their picture in the candidates gallery. I beleive David duke is treated similarly for the GOP in 92Themostcasualobserver (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This example actually has a heading entitled "Other Candidates":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_presidential_candidates,_2008Themostcasualobserver (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Those articles should be changed. In fact, I am in the preliminary stages of sorting out the 2008 page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure articles can always be improved, but as far as they treat the candidates, it is appropriate to relegate lesser candidates to a lesser statusThemostcasualobserver (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• No Absolutely not - This quality of this page is becoming atrocious. What is the standard for a candidate's inclusion in this page? This is not an opinion page. Even the presidential candidates debates take into consideration only those who register a quantum percentage in the polls. No poll indicates this candidate, no credible news organization has reported on him.

New criteria and new subpage

I would like to start a discussion on the possibility of creating a new criteria for this page. This flows from a comment a made above re the Sharkey issue.

In keeping with WP:SIZE, I believe we should be trying to make this page as concise as possible. Therefore, I think we should establish an objective and neutral criteria for "serious" candidates that would appear on this page, with a more exhaustive list of candidates appearing elsewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. Candidates in the United States presidential election, 2012). This would consistent with what we do with opinion polls and straw polls.

I've created this draft page of what the candidates section would look like if a criteria of having declared, filed or created an exploratory committee; and having two recent sources; and having a 2% showing in a national or early state poll were applied.

What are people's thoughts on this? - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This page falls way below the threshold of needing a fork at this point. Your suggestion is something to keep in mind for when the election season really heats up and this page gets packed, but I don't think we should do anything now. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the point made above. Size is currently not an issue on this page and with the current criteria it probably never will be. As for the proposal, I don't think an arbitrary limit of 2% in a poll defines seriousness. Unquestionably, Santorum, Johnson, Karger and Roemer are "serious" candidates but with this standard they would be excluded. Therefore, I must oppose the proposal and support the current standards.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not in need of a fork. I also think the proposal for a "2% showing in a poll" rule is too arbitrary and restrictive. It currently excludes Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson, who were Governors, and Rick Santorum, who was a U.S. Senator. Johnson and Santorum participated in a major debate as well, how can they not be listed? Seems to me that media coverage should be a greater factor than polling numbers.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem for using media coverage is that that becomes rather subjective and invites POV. Perhaps, simply being included among candidates asked in a major poll would be better? - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Many non-candidates are included on polls. How can a list of the chosen candidates of pollsters or any mainstream media report be more reliable than the FEC's compiliation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with pictureprovence, although Santorum should be listed because of how recently he was Senator. Johnson could be, since he was in the debate, and I'm not sure about Roemer because he doesn't appear in many polls, wasn't in the debate, and hasn't sreved in political office since 1993. Anyway ,my criteria would be signing up with the FEC, AND earning 2% in a poll, or appearing in one of the toffically televised Presidential debates. SOXROX (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say if someone gets any support in a nationwide poll (even less than 1%) then they are a candidate worth noting on this page. This poll has non-zero figures for all former office-holders, plus Cain. They did not ask about Martin, McMillan, and Sharkey, but de-listing them would not be a great loss IMO. Karger was only named as someone's second choice. Listing only those that get some non-zero amount of support would be a simple, straightforward metric. Of course, the media has to ask about them in the poll first, and in this poll "someone else" was the first choice of 3% of Republicans.--Chaser (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As for William S. Saturn, the FEC is a database for ALL candidates. It doesn't mention how notable they are to the campaign. Our objective is to make the list smaller and not crowd the article with no names. By your criteria, we should go back and add miner "Joe Smith" to the 1852 Presidential Election article. Obviously I'm making it up, but by your criteria, we should just jumble the article because one source mentions top candidates with low candidates. The mainstream media is our main source, remember, and do they mention Fred Karger, Jimmy McMillan, Andy Martin, Roy Moore, and Jonathon Sharkey? NO SOXROX (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you consider to be "mainstream media"? because I have seen Karger, Moore, and even Mcmillan mentioned in what I would consider relatively mainstream press in the past month or so. Also y'all do realize Clinton was polling only about 1% in the summer or '91. As far as folks like Johnson or Roemer or even Moore, I think they still deserve inclusion at this point because they have held elective offices, and have had notability outside of their run for president as political figures.Themostcasualobserver (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If miner "Joe Smith" is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, then he should be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why?--Chaser (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I respect you and all, but that might be the stupidest thing I've read on an election talkpage. SOXROX (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are making this more complicated than it should be. The current standard is easy, straight-forward, neutral and based on wikipedia's concept of notability. Any arbitrary standard will be complicated, stir misunderstandings and edit wars, and not be neutral to all the notable candidates for president. Furthermore, will this arbitrary standard also apply to third party candidates?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already an talk page war! And a pretty vicious one too, since it briefly spilled onto your and Chaser's talkpages. We have to make a resolution, and that means we have to change the criteria. It's as simple as that. Strange thing is, it started out so simple, Sharkey was proposed for deletion, and then all the sudden the debate spills onto this page and turns ugly. This must stop. Compromise, PLEASESOXROX (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion is not the same as edit warring. At the moment, there is no edit warring on the page. As for Sharkey, the AFD should have settled the matter, but Chaser brought up Sharkey's inclusion on this talk page without proposing a standard for inclusion and then held a vote on whether to exclude the individual. As I've said, that was not the appropriate way to deal with the issue and so a "talk page war" ensued. However, this thread was the proper way to address the issue and I thank PictureProvince for that but I must disagree with his proposal for the reasons stated above: "The current standard is easy, straight-forward, neutral and based on wikipedia's concept of notability. Any arbitrary standard will be complicated, stir misunderstandings and edit wars, and not be neutral to all the notable candidates for president." Finally, the question of third party candidates needs to be addressed -- will they be held to the same standard?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The current standard is just as arbitrary. Everyone that files is a candidate. Only people that get significant press coverage qualify for an article on Wikipedia, and thus an entry here. So the current standard depends on the press covering someone, and whether that coverage is significant (is that arbitrary?). Adding, say, a requirement that someone be recently noted by the press as a candidate (which would include Sharkey) would be well in line with our policies on reliable sources and due weight. If that's arbitrary, its arbitrariness is inherent in longstanding Wikipedia policies.--Chaser (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Using notability is not arbitrary in the sense of a made-up poll standard. Notability is what every wikipedia page is based upon; this page does not do the picking and choosing, AFD ultimately determines the consensus of notability, and this page simply reflects that. I assume by your penultimate statement that you have embraced the current standard and I thank you for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong assumption. Notability is a standard for determining whether we ought to have an article about a person at all. Extending notability to embrace inclusion in this list of candidates is arbitrary. Using reliable sources to decide who is a candidate [12] [13] [14] is not arbitrary at all. It's policy. Policy that the current standard ignores.--Chaser (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a minimum of two sources per candidate. That's the current standard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You must have an extraordinary short memory. Please re-read what I wrote above.--Chaser (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to better explain how this is any different from the current standard. You stated above that enough sources existed that referred to Sharkey as a candidate for him to be included on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're conflating the standard with the result (whether Sharkey is included) as well as two standards I've mentioned. There are at least three standards in the last bit of this thread:

1. The current standard, which relies on reliable sources only to determine notability, then lists all candidates with articles but does not list candidates that do not have articles. For example, Raphael Herman and Deonia Neveu are not listed, even though the press has covered them both [15] [16] [17], only because no Wikipedian has created an article about them. Herman would pass AFD.
2. A standard that I raised for discussion in the sentence beginning "Adding, say", which would include anyone named by any reliable source as a candidate (this would include Sharkey). I wasn't endorsing this standard. It was intended to promote discussion. This standard wouldn't be limited to lists of candidates, but would include any article discussing someone as a candidate.
3. A standard of listing people that are included in reliable sources' lists of candidates: [18] [19] [20].

Other standards, based on poll numbers, were also discussed further up in the thread. Hope that helps.--Chaser (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are basically three kinds of candidates for presidential nominations:

• name politicians with substantial support (e.g. Romney)
• name politicians without much support (e.g. Santorum, Roemer)
• non-politicians no one's ever heard of (e.g. Sharkey)

(Note that membership in these kinds can change over time; in late 2007 Huckabee moved from the second to the first, while this year Cain has moved from the third to the second). Most media articles just deal with the first two kinds and ignore the third. WP has always included the third. I didn't like doing so back in 2008, and I still don't, since I think it obscures to a foreign or political unaware reader who is who. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said countless times, the candidates that the mainstream media decides to list in no way determines who is a notable candidate. The mainstream media has to keep the field limited due to the short attention spans of the readers and for space purposes (which is not a problem at wikipedia). I'd like to think that we at wikipedia are more concerned with accuracy as reported in reliable sources, which can be found for all the candidates listed on this page. Perhaps there are other candidates that are notable but do not have articles, I do not know, however I do know that articles for candidates Ole Savior and John Davis were created and added to this page, but were then deleted through AFD due to a lack of notability. Exclusion in no way proves nonexistence of notability. Similarly, reliable sources that show existence cannot be arbitrarily ignored. But we also must remember that notability is the keystone for inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I too am not worried about size, and I think that changing the standard makes the page potentially increasingly subject to edit wars. There is no harm with the current standard, and I doubt this list will expand much further than what it is today.--Enos733 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

As it isn't clear to me from the above whether or not we are erring toward changing the criteria or keeping it, I thought that a straw poll might be a useful exercise to see whether or not it is worth continuing this discussion or if, in fact, the consensus is that the current criteria should stay in which case a discussion of possible new criteria would be a waste of our collective time. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified all users that participated in the above discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

The current criteria should be changed because it includes too many candidates, or because it excludes too many candidates:

• Pictureprovince (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• SOXROX (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC) STRONG SUPPORT
• Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (includes too many)
• Gage (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Rollins83 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (includes a few too many)

The current criteria strikes the right balance and should not be changed:

• --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• ----Enos733 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• —Diiscool (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• - Ratemonth (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• - Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't see any real possibility for consensus on new criteria.--Chaser (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If we were to slice out the "non-serious" candidates a couple months ago, Herman Cain likely would've gotten the axe, or at least people would've tried to cut him out. One debate later, he looks like he might make some real noise. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point on Cain. Also, there is no clear rationale from proponents to establish an arbitrary standard. The community already determined (or could determine) what individuals were notable or not to be included on the list through AFD (why would you need another test of notability when size is not an issue?). Hence, editorial judgment of inclusion derives not from an individual's interpretation of cherry-picked sources that do have a size limit, but from the community's judgment of notability through reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How long should this straw poll last? SOXROX (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The "vote" really doesn't matter because issues are resolved through discussion. No one seems to be countering my points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William S. Saturn (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidance is that a straw poll should be open for at least a week. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: We must recognize that we live in a changing era where average citizens can put themselves in the spotlight and gain a following much larger than anyone would expect. But putting that aside for the moment, let's examine the restrictive viewpoint. This arbitrary test of notability (which prevents the accuracy potential and is unneeded due to size) is to determine who is a fringe candidate and who is not. So it is argued that such a determination could be made through political polls. Well, that would exclude Buddy Roemer, a former governor, and Rick Santorum, a former senator. I don't think anyone would argue that they are fringe. So maybe the determination could be made through common sense; everyone should be able to see that certain individuals are just not notable enough to be included, right? Well then you have disputes, because many different editors have many different ideas about notability. Some say Karger is notable enough, other say he's not, some say McMillan should be included, others say no. It's a never-ending cycle of dispute. Perhaps the most stable and simple standard could be consensus (it has worked for nearly four years at the template). The consensus of wikipedians to decide who is notable and who is not through the process of AFD. Yes, I realize an individual may be notable for reasons other than their campaign for president, but I highly doubt that the vast network of sources would pass by such an individual -- hence, the two source minimum. Now, let me return to my opening. With what we know about trends, shouldn't the page reflect the reality of the Citizen Candidate that was non-existent in the times of party-dominated politics? I certainly think so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this straw poll is about changing the criteria. I've pretty much given up attempting to get a compromise from you at this point. SOXROX (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is unnecessary if arguments cannot be countered. If you cannot counter an argument you must determine why, then either agree with the point made or decide to just ignore the point.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if declared candidates were held to the same standard as prospective candidates and had to receive cont'd, recent, reliable coverage that can be sourced as a criteria to remain in the main article, with a subcategory of declared candidates without evidence of an active campaign. Just because a "citizen candidate" files some paperwork, if they are not campaigning--then are they really a candidate?Themostcasualobserver (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see where you are coming from, but there's a big difference between a prospective and an actual candidate. A prospective candidate is not a candidate, however an actual candidate is a candidate. Once an individual is a candidate in an election, they should be noted in history as being a candidate in that election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And I agree they should be annotated. I am just looking for a way to list them that accurately portrays their involvement in the processThemostcasualobserver (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a very good point. However, how will this be applicable after the election? For example, when a candidate withdraws, I've taken the liberty to put the name in italics (as in the case of Mosler), though after the election, the italics will no longer be necessary since the nominee will be the only name in bold. It would seem to be an unnecessary burden to continually look for sources when sources have already shown that an individual did in fact run for the office (no matter the length of the actual run).--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no consensus to change the criteria and, in fact, a majority of those who contributed preferred that the criteria remain unchanged. Therefore, it would be rather futile to try to find a consensus on a new criteria in my opinion. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Those of us who want to change it, including me, seem to have given up on the prospect of changing it. SOXROX (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Futuraprime, 8 June 2011

To be added to the list of Republican candidates:

Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and former Ambassador to China Futuraprime (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He is listed in the list of potential candidates. He has yet to officially announce either an exploratory committee, or an official candidacy for President. Gage (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done SOXROX (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - US election 2012: Jon Huntsman to join Republican field --Smart (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So we can add him when he announces on Tuesday. :) SOXROX (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharkey is not a declared candidate

Jonathan Sharkey is not a declared candidate because he has not filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC for the 2012 election. See this: http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P80002884. All his "statements of candidacy" are for previous elections, not 2012. Please remove him, he should not be listed as a candidate until he make a statement for 2012. Wikipeida readers should not be given inaccurate and misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.243.119 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the documents are for the 2012 election at the link you have given. If you could provide a link to a specific document that is not for 2012, please do so. —Diiscool (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of the 2010 midterms. Anyway, he filed for the 2012 Presidential.--Chaser (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Move Jon Huntsman

He has formally announced. [21] 76.210.70.31 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alexroller, 27 June 2011

In the section about current candidates for President, please list Tom Stevens of New York as a candidate from the Objectivist Party because he is officially registered as a candidate for President.

http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/

Alexroller (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would but his article was redirected by TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) who seems very inflexible on the matter. See [22].--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The matter is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Thomas Stevens.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Marking as this until a consensus is developed to add him in. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Why isn't Ralph Nader listed somewhere on this page? There has been at least some speculation about him running, right? Alphius 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He was listed until recently as a prospective independent candidate but was removed because two or more sources citing him as a potential candidate could not be found within the time frame of the article's criteria. He is still listed on the United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 page as a "previous" speculated candidate, and will be re-added to this page if and when two or more recent reliable citations surface which contain speculation of him running in 2012.--JayJasper (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dmcummings5, 28 June 2011

Please remove the mention of Barack Obama specifically in the introductory paragraph. The detail mentioned there is inappropriate for the introduction / general information around the 2012 Presidential election. Candidates from both parties are covered in section 3, Candidates.

Dmcummings5 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You are asking us to make this page less informative, as people often skim the lead and move on. An incumbent president running for reelection is noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann campaign website

Just wanted to point out that Michele Bachmann's campaign website does not have a link on this page. That should be put in as she is more serious of a candidate than those such as Jimmy McMillan, and has been in the race longer than those such as Thad McCotter. Yet McMillan and McCotter both have links to their campaigns while Bachmann does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.239.96 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It was an oversight. I've added a link to Bachmann's site, as well as those of Kent Mesplay, R. Lee Wrights and Stewart Alexander. Difluoroethene (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New article

One more source and David Duke is on the prospective candidates list. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is now being reported in several reputable news outlets from msn to politicalwire, but they all seem to refernce the "dailybeast" blog post as their source, so I'm not sure 2 "unique" sources exist yet. What is the consensus on multiple news outlets using the same original source? http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/05/duke_may_run_for_president.html http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/david-duke-presidential-race-ku-klux-klan-/1?csp=34news http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-david-duke-considering-2012-presidential-campaign/Themostcasualobserver (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Atlantic says he confirmed that he is "considering" running for president in an email, after the Daily Beast story broke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NextUSprez (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

David Duke

According to these sources (and his own website), David Duke is already in the exploratory committee phase: [23] [24]. Is that enough evidence to move him into the current candidates section, or should we leave him in prospective candidates for now? Difluoroethene (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we need FEC to have a source. SOXROX (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

Suppose a future independent candidate on the level of a 1992 Ross Perot or a 1968 George Wallace emerges (nobody is on my radar). What is the minimum amount of info required to place them into the top infobox? Polling data around 30%? Multiple media sources treating them as a legitimate top-tiered candidate? Obviously, I wouldn't expect this to be possible until after the major-party nominees are clear.

Donald Trump would probably fall into that category should he decide to run as an independent (as he has hinted). 30% is a bit high actually. Personally, if he gets included in any of the major presidential debates (as Perot did), I'd be in favor of including him (or whomever else ends up emerging). Difluoroethene (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

5% has been used as the threshold on previous election articles. If a candidate reaches above 5% in polling then they should be included, however, if they poll below 5% on election day then they should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

5% seems a bit low. Perot and Wallace received 18.9 and 13.5% of the popular vote respectively. It's also significantly less than the percentage of "undecided" voters, typically around 10%. I'm therefor thinking 10% to be a better threshold. Rami R 07:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but 5% is used on all election articles, including congressional and gubernatorial races. Furthermore, a limit of 10% would exclude Perot's 1996 run when he received 8.4% as well as John B. Anderson's total of 6.6% in 1980. 5% is generally regarded as a milestone for third party candidacies and according to Walter Dean Burnham represents a successful third party candidacy in a presidential election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly am, thanks. I'm not convinced that Anderson's 1980 and Perot's 1996 runs were significant, having both received less than a quarter of the second place's votes. It should also be noted that Anderson and Perot were only added to the infoboxes about a year ago. However, if a reliable source states that 5% is the significant threshold, so be it. I would like a citation though. Rami R 20:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

See page 4 of Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence where it states: "most scholars follow Walter Dean Burnham, who defined 'successful' third parties as those that attract at least 5 percent of the vote. By the Burham standard, Ross Perot's electoral movement in 1992 and his Reform candidacy in 1996 were extraordinarily successful." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of Anderson and Perot's influences on their campaigns, I definitely support the 5% threshold. SOXROX (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)