Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential candidates

I do not think the part on John McCain is balanced or well written and needs to be revised.

My thought is: Who cares who runs for the Repub's they are TOAST anyhow after allowing a crooked administration to rule like dictators for the past 6 1/2 years. These guys were ONLY for themselves. Look to see who has profited from the war, it definitely is not the American people. See how George Bush was put into office and used the office as an instrument to get oil prices to the highest in American history. Look who profited from the war in Iraq....Chaney's old buddies? What about Rumsfeld....look into him a bit. And the Republican's did all they possibly could to play innocent. Mark my words, it will be all in the history books in the years to come. I was a Republican up until the point they put Bush on the ballot back in 1999 and I could not put myself to vote for someone of his nature. Now after seeing how the Republican party is the most close minded party, I will NEVER vote for a republican again....no conscious, no humanity,....and a LOAD OF GREED !!!

HELLO! WE'RE FORGETTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!!! OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, KEN MEHLMAN AND MIKE HUCKABEE BUT THERE'S MORE

Huckabee is on there, buddy. Frankg 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it silly to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger? I suppose he is not currently eligible to serve as President (given his European birth) but his name is often associated with a plan to change that rule. Eh, it sounds silly just typing this, nevermind. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless the constitution is amended before the 2008 election, he should be omitted. Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a natural candidate if eligible, just like Jennifer Granholm for the Dems. The only way they should be included on each party's page is only after a theoretical constitutional amendment passes and they show signs as to being interested in a presidential run.--Folksong 04:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I was reading along, thinking what a nice, comprehensive list this was, until I got to Donnie Kennedy. WHO?!?!?! His inclusion in this list is silly, and it effectively ruins the list. He should be removed. Otherwise, I like this article. If you cannot tell the political affiliation of the author, it makes for a perfect wikipedia entry.

I removed D. Kennedy. His campaign's webpage[1] is a Yahoo group with 10 members.Still A Student 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to have a picture of everyone? Bayberrylane 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the photos, but could someone fix them so they line up with the text? I suppose creating a new section for each paragraph would do it, but there ought to be a more elegant way. Extra space below each paragraph would be no real problem. (also in Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election) Still A Student 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't this page be more like Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election with the pictures darting back and forth, and photos for the Announced Candidates? SargeAbernathy 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* nevermind, someone's gone mess that page up ... SargeAbernathy 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change the wording on Hagel facing "similar problems to Guiliani" after the page defines Guiliani's opposition as being due to his pro-choice/pro-gay marriage views. Hagel is against both abortion and gay marriage, and that's not where his supposed liberalism comes from. Umdunno

Allen?

Why is he still on the list? And even then, why is he listed first? Let's face it, he doesn't have much of a shot anymore... 129.2.227.93 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He might still have a shot. Even though he lost the VA race, he is still widely respected elsewhere. That said, I doubt he will even attempt a run. McCain has the nomination in the bag.

Romney

correct me if I'm wrong, but Mitt Romney's not on the list at the moment. jj 15:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

fixed it. jj 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hagel

I won't start a revert war here, but I'm sorry, but I just want to note that Hagel is not a "conservative" Republican, despite today's changes to his entry. - Nhprman ^List 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Companion page up for deletion

Potential third party candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has been listed as an Article for Deletion here. As the AfD is about a companion page, and the results could effect the viability of this page as well, you are encouraged to check out its AfD listing. --Tim4christ17 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The concensus of that article's AfD was keep. --Tim4christ17 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone source these obscure candidates?

First, I don't know why Donnie Kennedy got added back, since he's a yahoo group with 10 members. Secondly, I haven't found ANY link for the Fred Phelps thing, outside of people citing this article in prominent places. I do not want us distributing false information. Can anyone source this?? -Umdunno 04:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And excuse me, but Phelps has been added by anonymous users BOTH times. (not counting reverts) -Umdunno 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a "Draft Kennedy" page online, but it doesn't appear to be up-to-date and looks more like an ad for his many neo-Confederate books. There is nothing online about a Phelps candidacy, and it's not mentioned on the Fred Phelps Wikipedia article, which is quite thorough. He mentions nothing about a presidential run on his own Webpage. - Nhprman ^List 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Phelps

Someone please give a source for the Phelps statement. He was a Gore supporter and seems to hate America, so I doubt he would seek the GOP nomination. Tim Long 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy moved, not an announced candidate

I moved Donnie Kennedy's entry to the bottom of the "Other people mentioned as possible candidates" section, out of the "Announced" section, since there is no evidence he has announced. However, he is discussed as a potential candidate. This, perhaps, will help solve the edit war about his status. I also question Phelps being in the "Announced" category, since there is no evidence presented that he has made an announcement on his radio show, as presented here. If no evidence is presented, he should also probably go to thse "mentioned" section. The only truly announced candidate for the GOP nomination (and the only one actually announced AND campaigning), is John Cox. - Nhprman ^List 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

John McCain Falseification

"Giuliani is, however, pro-choice and pro gay rights, which might hurt him in the primaries against a strong pro-life and anti-Gay marriage candidate, such as George Allen or John McCain."

Here's a link to another wiki entry that clearly shows that McCain at least voted anti on gay marriage amendment banning it. Therefore we should take out McCain's name. (Creator22 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Hastert

and for his efforts to get to the bottom of the "Mark Foley Scandal."

Seems to early to be so optimistic on this one. Do others have information I don't? He may very well be doing all he can, but at the present time it seems POV. It has certainly brought him into the spotlight. Whether it will end up for better or worse for him remains in question though. Khirad 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

He's under fire from the Right as well as the Left over this matter (a Washington Times editorial called for his resignation, and Human Events says Congress needs new leaders.) It hardly seems likely that he's considered seriouesly as presidential timber at this point, but that's just my view. - Nhprman ^List 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Huckabee

Where, again, is Huckabee? Maybe I just can't see him...

Changes

I changed the format to a table, per the changes on the Potential Democratic candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election. --myselfalso 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. However, whoever added Rep. Hunter to the "announced" candidates is incorrect. He simply announced an exploratory committee. Romney, McCain and the others have done the same. He should go in the "potential" category. Nhprman ^List 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One could make the argument that since this is an article about potential Republican candidates that Romney, McCain, and others belong in the announced category. --myselfalso 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, none of those others have announced, and are very careful not to do so, because then they have to abide by McCain-Feingold and stop taking thousands of dollars from individuals. But in reality, you do have a point, since they are clearly running. Nhprman ^List 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gingrich commentary

Is this really relevant????

"He has been married several times, always to women. He is well-known for being extraordinarily heterosexual."

He has been married three times.

Duncan Hunter?

Where is Duncan Hunter on this list? He has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee and, therefore, should be considered a potential candidate. Metstotop333 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cox, Smith, and the FEC

Doing a search on FEC showed that John Cox and Michael Charles Smith both have filed with the FEC, and therefore are taking this seriously. [2] [3]. So do they get put up on the wikipedia page, or is there a different "sign" for wikipedian's to officially list someone's name? SargeAbernathy 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put up Cox and Smith again, since there are FEC reports being filed. Reading their website I believe John Cox is serious about a nation wide campaign. Michael Charles Smith is more realistic and hopes to gain 5,000 votes in Oregon to get on the ballot and hopes to at least go to the Republican National Convention. I put him up there because he and Cox are the ONLY ones to have been sending in reports to the FEC for their presidential runs. SargeAbernathy 16:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, and the correct move. If they aren't here, they should be on an ANNOUNCED page (and that page wouldn't include McCain and Hunter, since they have only set up committees to explore a race, and have not formally announced, as this Potentials page correctly notes. - Nhprman ^List 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about moving it to an ANNOUNCED page. I think this article should be renamed Republican candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election and have the sections for potential and possible. --myselfalso 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential candidates is the correct name for the page, as they will remain potential candidates for the 2008 race until they have either won their primary or declared as an independent. Remember that the name of the page is "Potential Republican Candidates in the 2008 United States presidential election" NOT "Potential Candidates for the Republican Nomination". Also, for myselfalso, we couldn't use the name you suggested because while there can be multiple Republican candidates for the Republican nomination, there can only be one Republican candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election. However, within the page there should, of course, be a differentiation between the announced and potential candidates for the nomination - so readers know how serious the different potential candidates are about the race. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Santorum not running

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Don't expect to see Sen. Rick Santorum's name on the 2008 presidential ballot. "Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not," Santorum said yesterday on The Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM (1210). "My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."[4]

Since 1952 ?

In 1952 the (incumbent party in the '52 election) Democrat nominees were neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. VP Barkley sought the Democratic nomination, but lost out to (then) Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II. Therefore the line First incumbent party, not to put forward as candidate an incumbent President or Vice President since 1952, is inaccurate. GoodDay 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited in the correction; the Republican Party, was the last (incumbent) party, to nominate a Presidential candiate (in 1928) who was neither the incumbent President OR Vice President. GoodDay 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget wikilinks for important concepts

There are a lot of words which prop up a lot like Exploratory committee (which I believe is a legal requirement), Political action committee etc. Make sure these are wikilinked at least once as most non-American readers are unlikely to know what they are. Nil Einne 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

Okay I know this is completely OT but does anyone in their right mind really think Jeb Bush is going to consider running? His brother has basically screwed up any chance of that completely since it seems to me no one in their right mind would vote for another Bush in the 2008 election even if he's a democract hippie who believes in free love and hates his brother (which he isn't) Nil Einne 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little OT. My thought is that he'll consider running, but decide to wait until 2012 or 2016. Can you imagine what it'd be like to have two dynastic candidates for president (if Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both decided to run)? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the plan is G.H.W. Bush (1989-1993); W.J. Clinton (1993-2001), G.W. Bush (2001-2009), H.R. Clinton (2009-2017), J. Bush (2017-2025), C. Clinton (2025-2033), and so on. John Broughton | Talk 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's hillarious, John! ;-) Although it is also very scary, since that indeed seems like the plan. American political parties are the LEAST creative ones in the world, I'm afraid. The GOP has had a Dole or a Bush on the ticket every election since 1976. Think about THAT. LOL - Nhprman ^List 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a Former Candidate category...

So that people will not re-add the candidates that have declined to run, and all former candidates will probably be on a shortlist of veep nominees.--Folksong 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Michael Smith

I deleted the following addition:

Richard Michael Smith of Texas is a Republican candidate for President of the United States, officially registered with the FEC. Campaign reports have been filed for March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2006.

Richard Michael is a social and fiscal conservative. He believes in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, and preserving individual freedoms. This is a grass-roots campaign, emphasizing the right of the people to choose their leader instead of one selected by wealthy special interest groups.
Richard Michael's campaign biography and statements on the issues can be found on his official website: [5]. Contact him by email at [email removed]

--Richard Michael Smith 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

along with a lot of garbled formatting mess. If he's registered he may warrant a mention in this article, though. --Aranae 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to your removal of this candidate. He is a registered candidate as a simple check with the FEC will reveal. If you remove him, you should remove the other candidates. Did you even check out the website? ---Richard Michael Smith.

--Richard Michael Smith 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The section was written in a promotional manner and is therefore a violation of wikipedia policy. If we can confirm that Smith is a serious, notable candidate and has filed with the FEC, he will be readded. Instead of deleting it outright, I moved it here so other editors can start looking into including Smith in the article. --Aranae 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to an independent site that pulls financial data from the FEC showing the June 30, 2006 report: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/richard-michael-smith.asp?cycle=06 . You can, of course, obtain more current information by logging into the FEC site: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P80003015/. If further information is required, please post what is needed here. Thank you for your prompt attention to this.

--Richard Michael Smith 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a note about WP:COI to Richard's talk page. John Broughton | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Change in article organization

Quite frankly, I'm not that interested in an article that gives significant space (picture, campaign platform, etc.) to anyone who files out paperwork and pays a nominal fee to the FEC to file for the Presidency. (Gosh, Fred, for $100 and two hours of filling out paperwork, I can have a big picture and bio in Wikipedia for two years! I'm going for it!!!)

I suggest that this article be retitled "Notable 2008 United States ... ", and that pictures and significant text be devoted only to candidates who have at least a very small chance of winning - folks who have been elected governor, U.S. Senator, etc. There certainly should be a section on "Mentioned but not running", for folks like George Allen and Bill Frist, with perhaps a couple of sentences per person, but they shouldn't get as much space as actual and potential notables in the running. There certainly could be a small section for "Non-notable candidates who have filed paperwork", with the name of the person and his/her website, for completeness sake. John Broughton | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if they are going to appear on a ballot (even in just one state), they belong here. A list is fine, though, not the big paragraph and picture. Does filing with the FEC guarantee that or is there still a signature process? --Aranae 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The requirements for appearing on a ballot vary by state, and are controlled (per a recent Supreme Court decision) by each state party. So there is a separate filing fee and/or ballot requirement for each state, I'm sure, in addition to the FEC filing.

Since we're talking ONLY about Republican candidates, in this article, we're talking about those who appear on a primary or caucus ballot in one of the states that have these. I'm fine having a separate section with a list of such people. My goal isn't to restrict the mention of anyone, it's just to not give undue weight to a non-notable candidate, per WP:NPOV). John Broughton | Talk 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the "potential" candidates are VERY non-notable. Nhprman ^List 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all three "official" candidates are non-notable. Everyone else seems clearly notable - notable enough to be invited to a debate, as, say, Dennis Kucinich was in 2004, for example. John Broughton | Talk 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are no negative reactions to this proposal in the next couple of days, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. 21:45, 16 December 2006 John Broughton | Talk

Sorry this is late. I disagree. If the official candidates are going to be minimized into a short list at the end, the title should be reverted to "Potential" only. Otherwise, paragraphs are ENTIRELY legitimate for the official candidates, just as they are for potentials. Nhprman ^List 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about the title, but I strongly recommend that you not change it without getting further input from others. If the choice is between (a) changing the title and giving non-notable official candidates only a small amount of text, or (b) keeping the title and giving non-notable candidates just as much space as notable ones, then I'd certainly vote for (a). However, I believe that (b) is, as I said, I violation of WP:NPOV - undue weight. This isn't a matter of "fairness", if that's your concern - if wikipedia were "fair", in that sense, every single person would be entitled to a full article about themselves. It's about proportionality - important people get more space than unimportant people. And the links (both wikilinks to articles and external links to candidate pages) are there for any readers interested in getting more info on the official (much less, or not at all) notable candidates. John Broughton | Talk 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting the title, and yet, it makes no sense now to include "official" when you minimize that part of the article to the point of absurdity. To be blunt and to the point, John Cox appears to be a serious candidate, given that he has a serious campaign organization, has been on radio and TV, has been vigorously campaigning and has 33 state organizations - including in IA, NH and SC (and I've seen him in NH several times.) Frankly, the other two - one of them a tuba player the other a perennial candidate - are as you say, "unimportant." Given the standards for importance, and likelihood for success, I'd question why Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson are included and given full lines. They are clearly not seriously being considered as serious candidates and are going nowhere, but of course that's as much of a value judgement as you've made in your cutting and slashing here. Nhprman ^List 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly know a lot about Cox, including some things not in John H. Cox. For example, that he has 33 state "organizations" is not in that article, which says only that As of Oct. 26, 2006, the campaign had committee chairmen in 16 states. (A "chairman" is quite different from an "organization".) If such sourced statements (meeting WP:RS were in the article, I certainly wouldn't have a problem giving Cox a bit more text here.

I note that my criteria for how much space to give a candidate and your criteria may differ significantly. You appear to me looking at effort. My criteria is probability that candidate can get adequate funding from others to run a serious campaign, where "serious" means lots of television ads, large mailings, thousands of volunteers, etc. The reality of American politics, for better or worse, is that if someone who has never been elected to a major office, nor has been a U.S. Cabinet member or military general or CEO of a major company, has ZERO probability of being nominated by a major party, let alone being elected. The reality also is that it takes tens of millions of dollars to run a serious campaign in the primaries, and self-funded candidates (if Cox had that kind of money, which isn't clear) without other qualifications don't impress anywhere near enough people to have any chance at all.

More generally, Wikipedia editors make value judgments all the time about what should and shouldn't go into an article, and how much space to give to any particular matter (article, section, paragraph, sentence, whatever). That's why it's so important to pay attention to what other editors say. It's also why it's so important not to let personal feelings affect such judgments. In this case, I note that no other people who have edited the article previously seem to have a problem with the changes I made to it. I suggest waiting a week to see if any others chime in here, and then, if you're still feel a change is needed, we can discuss the matter further. John Broughton | Talk 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that by denying candidates like John Cox and Michael Charles Smith space on this page with a bio and picture, we are effectively advocating against their candidacies. Yeah, they might not have a chance, but as an NPOV source of information, I believe it's important that since they officially declared their candidacies and filed with the FEC, we treat them the same way as big-name candidates as John McCain or Newt Gingrich.--Folksong 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think you misread WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no requirement that people be treated "equally"; in fact, that violates NPOV criteria because it gives undue weight to someone not deserving it. To be quite blunt, I'd give good odds that the article on Michael Charles Smith wouldn't survive an AfD; I think Wikipedia editors are already bending over backwards to be "fair" by letting the article alone. Giving him (or other non-starters) a picture and text equal to Mitt Romney or John McCain would be absurd, like having an article on battles in France in 1944 that gave equal space to the fignting on Normandy beaches and a skirmish on the outskirts of Paris. John Broughton | Talk 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your value judgments and deleting the official candidates from the page titled Official and potential...candidates. Brilliant move. Did you get a lot of "input" on that decision, by the way?

You're wrong about "undue weight," and actually unknowingly illustrate it by slanting the article towards the celebrity politicians. But never mind that minor issue. Your analogy is sadly mistaken, too. No battles have actually been fought, but apparently your favorites are allowed the title of victors and worthy of attention, but the ACTUAL ("official-ly") announced candidates can't have space? Can I remind you that NO VOTES HAVE BEEN CAST in the primaries? There's an expectation of fairness here, if not "equality," although, granted, on Wikipedia it's often the side with the biggest gang and the most active/persistent editors who win.

If we're going to go 'round deleting candidates, and talk about undue weight, this Smith fellow with a tuba and his one-man campaign in one state seems to contrast sharply with John H. Cox and his 33 state committee chairs, media coverage, actual inter-state travel schedule, etc. They seem light years apart, but that's all opinion, too, I guess. You're right, no one but the so-called "front runners" deserve attention, because you say so. Don't worry, I refuse to argue this issue for 557 posts, so you 'win' in that sense. Damned pesky consensus anyway. Too messy. Suffice it to say, I'll be back to just as arbitrarily delete Romney and/or McCain or some of these other celebrities when and if they flame out of the race, or don't even join it.

As for the 16/33 state issue, Cox' Website has a news release showing the new number, as well as a big map with 33 states colored in. The 16 state notation (and bear in mind this is from way back in OCTOBER of this year) will be changed for this "insignificant" candidate, and sourced to those notations on his site. Thanks for the catch. Nhprman ^List 07:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there has got to be a list of notable candidates from some mainstream or specialized media source like the NYT, CQ, or ABC News. I don't believe wikipedia should be determining who is notable and who isn't. Cox is notable in that he is raising funds and filed with the FEC. Calwatch 08:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't delete any candidates; I'd appreciate your ceasing to say that. Second, regarding the news release, it says now has committees actively organizing in 33 states; my read on that is that there is a named campaign chair in 33 states who is "actively" organizing such a committee. More importantly, I've said, and will repeat, that I have no objections to enlarging the entry on Cox to indicate his progress; are you not interested in adding at least a sentence or two? Third, the statement apparently your favorites are allowed the title of victors and worthy of attention is a violation of WP:AGF; and, for the record, I have no stake or personal interests in this discussion, but simply want to improve the article. Fourth and finally, I'm starting a new section in an attempt to resolve this per Wikipedia procedures. John Broughton | Talk 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to assume bad faith, but did you, when you arbitrarily decided who is and who isn't "notable"? McCain is notable, but is Hagel? Gilmore? Barely, but that's a value judgement. I STRONGLY dispute that Cox simply put his name in the hat over at the FEC, and I point you to the arguments made above. Smith is a case where you may have a point, but let's have that discussion, rather than just cutting lines and segregating candidates. There's a thin line between finding consensus and being bold in one's editing, and while both are valid WP practices, I usually favor erring on the side of the former, especially when politics is concerned. I also favor adding MORE good data to add to an article rather than cutting it (or portions of it) down to a stub in an overzealous spirit of deletionism and an over-strict interpretation of WP policies. I understand that these are philosophical points on which editors may reasonably differ. If there is a discssion here over who is a 'real' candidate and who isn't, then we should have it. Nhprman ^List 18:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolving dispute over amount of space to give to "official" candidates

There is a disagreement (see prior section) about whether "official" candidates (three are now listed in the article) deserve as much space in the article (including a picture) as do candidates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney. I have cited WP:NPOV (undue weight); that seems to have not been persuasive to some editors.

This section is to discuss how to resolve such a disagreement. I note Wikipedia:Resolving disputes offers various options; I am amenable to any of them (except "third opinion", which is inapplicable to this situation). I invite suggestions as to how to proceed. John Broughton | Talk 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would call on the WP:RFC crowd. Personally I don't understand why we are discriminating against Cox. After all, on the Democratic page, they include Mike Gravel, and in their writeup they even admit he has virtually no chance of winning. If we insist on excluding Cox, then we need to find a reputable source that lists presidential candidates and that does not mention Cox. Calwatch 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did a little googling, and I found only two good sources (good means meets Wiki standards, which means no blogs) that list the GOP candidates. Unfortunately for this debate, one source, CQ.com includes Cox[6] and the other source, Human Events, doesn't[7]. (As a point of reference, neither includes the Smiths, and CQ does include Gravel for the Democrats). I will admit I was very surprised that any source included Cox, which I didn't expect. But given that CQ does include him in their list, I would claim that that source alone justifies his inclusion in the main list. Simon12 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

CQ (which is, for the uninitiated, the Congressional Quarterly) is a neutral newspaper source, while Human Events is a conservative magazine. I would take the CQ list, and will restore Cox appropriately. Calwatch 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about whether to include Cox or not - it's the amount of SPACE to give to him and other official candidates who are acknowledged to have ZERO chance of winning. Googling and newspaper articles aren't a substitute for editorial judgment. I'm inclined, at this point, to start an RfC, unless someone can point out a reason why not to. John Broughton | Talk 01:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is not a cogent argument, as the Democratic side includes Gravel and Sharpton on the list, neither of whom have a chance of winning. Cox is not a LaRouche-type character; he has gotten coverage in mainstream media (in a dismissive fashion, sure, but he has made the front page of the LA Times among other media). In the third party article, we have pictures and writeups for all manner of candidates for all other parties, many of whom (save the eventual Libertarian candidate) which don't even have a mathematical chance of winning the presidency since they don't have ballot access in the number of states necessary. I think you are in the minority on this one. Calwatch 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand what the discussion is about - whether to include Cox in the "Official Candidate" list at the top, with a photo and paragraph. Also, "ZERO chance of winning" is a very poor standard to use for inclusion on the main list. People run for president for other reasons than to win - usually to focus the debate on their issues. Sharpton and Tancredo are two notable candidates who have the same chance of winning as Cox - ZERO - but belong on the main list. Finally, as for editorial judgment, I would take CQ's editorial judgment on politics over just about anybody elses. So here's a proposal: Use the CQ site noted above to determine which candidates deserve a photo and paragraph in the appropriate main sections. Doing it this way provides a Neutral point of view source , a verifiable source, and No original research. This would have the effect of drawing a line between Cox and others, at least at this point. For what it's worth, I'm not against an RfC, if others feel it's necessary. Simon12 02:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

Sorry, I don't think anyone but Wikipedia editors should decide what constitutes "undue weight", so, yes, I think an RfC or some other dispute resolution process is still needed here. To clarify - there is now a proposal to give Cox but not the other "official" candidates a picture and full text, because he's mentioned in CQ? Does anyone disagree with that (as opposed to giving ALL official candidates equal weight)? John Broughton | Talk 16:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I think we're going in circles. Let's have a RFC and a straight up-or-down vote whether or not to include these candidates.--Folksong 20:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But I'm unclear on whether the RfC should present the issue as:

• Is Cox important enough to treat equally with folks like John McCain? (this assumes consensus that other official candidates should merely be listed)
• Should all official candidates be treated like folks like John McCain (picture, significant amount of info)? (this assumes that Cox gets no special treatment, even though he was the only one listed in the CQ article)
• Which of the following is best: (a) Cox as equal, other official candidates merely listed; (b) all candidates, official or potential (notable) treated the same; or (c) official candidates just listed, not given picture or significant amount of info?

I'm happy to go forward with the RfC framed as any of these three, but I don't want to pick one and have other edtors feel that the version I chose wasn't what others prefered. John Broughton | Talk 02:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The questions you pose are extremely biased and misleading. These should be asked of ALL candidates, not just Cox. Is Duncan Hunter important enough? When was the last time a member of the US House of Representatives got elected? Calwatch 03:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

I'm very wary of any "up or down" process, although I expect that's what's going to happen here (I'm shuddering because I remember the Userbox debacle, in which the conservative and GOP Userboxes were deleted with impugnity, while the "I am a Marxist" and "I'm a Green" boxes were zealously guarded and left intact because their supporters could muster the votes to keep them alive. And yes, it's "voting" which technically isn't allowed here. Yeah, right.) It would be very easy for this "mob voting" to solve the problem by all the McCain and Romney folks jumping in and saying Cox or any other candidate is not a 'real' candidate. Does that make it right or just popular to exclude a clearly legitimate candidate like Cox? Still, it does seem fairer to allow a full discussion about this than let one editor determine that some are real candidates but others aren't real enough, apparently, and are relagated to the equivalent of a Nutjob section. To make the arbitrary decision that some FILED candidates are not serious enough to rate a photo and line or two, at least, is POV in the extreme.

To address the suggestions for RfC questions, above, I'd strongly avoid a Cox-related question, as this will come up again and again with other candidates. My view is that all candidates who are "official" and filed should be listed and granted space for a photo (as someone pointed out, the Democrats' page does) but the amount of space, and what's said in that space, obviously will reflect 1) Is the candidate campaigning for the job NATIONALLY or is the candidate simply putting his name on a list at the FEC? 2) Is the candidate getting national attention related to their bid for the White House? I'm not sure why these are controversial standards, and why this is an issue at all when it comes to John Cox. - Nhprman ^List 02:36, 26 December 2006

I believe that all candidates who officially file will get a photograph and a few sentences on their platform. If they are considered a longshot candidates or have major baggage (like LaRouche, who is not eligible to be elected from his state because he is a felon), then that shall be duly noted, with a reference made to the statement of longshot candidacy. If they are running to prove a point, and are not running nationally, then we will say so. When it's time for the ballots to be set, then we include those candidates who have enough ballot access to mathematically win the presidency, or something like that. Calwatch 03:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's wise and makes sense. - Nhprman ^List 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hearing that my second question [I'm expanding it here] - Should all official candidates be treated like John McCain (picture, significant amount of info), or should they be given less space (in proportion to how seriously they are taken by the media)? [I certainly welcome alternative wording - I'm just putting some words out to get the process started) - is the preferred option for the RfC. And I agree that an RfC is NOT a vote, per m:Polls are evil and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy - it's a chance to get the opinions of others. John Broughton | Talk 01:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the option chosen. The problem is that if the consensus is to "give less space based on how seriously they are taken by the media", nothing has been solved, as the question of how to determine who's being taken seriously is still left open, and leaves the question of whether Cox gets a photo no further resolved than it is today. I think some standard way of determining "how seriously..." needs to be proposed as part of the RfC.Simon12 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While no criteria can ever be totally objective, there must be some out there that could be useful in minimizing disputes. For example, in January 2004, seven Democrats were selected (by some organization or in some way) as being notable enough to be in a televised debate [8]. Perhaps similar criteria could be used here to determine if a candidate gets "full" coverage" (as with John McCain) or "minor" coverage (name, wikilink or URL of campaign website, and perhaps an additional sentence or two).

Then the RfC would be about whether to apply such criteria (in which case some candidates get no picture, etc.) or to not apply such criteria (in which case all candidates get roughly equal treatment). John Broughton | Talk 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I disagree with this distinction. Wikipedia is not paper and the third party candidates get names and blurbs on their page, as does Mike Gravel (who is highly unlikely to be invited to any debate). The simple fact that media is covering them to a discernable extent is enough, even if they are considered "longshot" candidates. The media does not give coverage to Lyndon LaRouche because the Democratic Party ruled him ineligible to receive delegates to the convention. If the Republican Party did the same thing to Cox or the Smiths, then excluding them from the list would be appropriate. If the person is not in enough ballots to mathematically be elected, then not including a picture might be appropriate. The list of candidates should be comprehensive and not discriminate against those candidates who are eligible to receive delegates. Calwatch 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that if you don't actually include the criteria in the RFC, and if the decision is to use a criteria, than the RFC won't accomplish much. I was too subtle in the last comment, so let me try again. I think the criteria you should include in the RFC is inclusion on the CQ page[9] I mentioned above. It's an informed, non-biased source. Inclusion in the debates is also a good and valid criteria, but won't be available for a number of months. Simon12 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Wikipedia is not paper", WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and WP:N is expressly to help decide what doesn't go into Wikipedia. And WP:NPOV talks about "undue weight", which means that while something might not be deleted altogether, it's not appropriate to treat everything equally.

And apparently I wasn't clear enough either: I think the criteria could be SIMILAR to whatever the criteria was used by the folks putting on the debates. I'm NOT suggesting using "inclusion in debates" as the criteria - the debates won't start for more a year, so what would be the point of that? John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Part 4

So perhaps the way to handle this is to ask, in the RfC, for suggestions on what the criteria might be. That is, the RfC would be two-part: first, should everyone be treated equally (non-notable official candidate gets same space as John McCain?); second, for those who believe the answer to the first question should be "no", what should the criteria be for distinguishing between "full discussion" candidates and "name and wikilink/campaign site link ONLY" candidates? (For example, "not on enough ballots" isn't a good criteria in 2007; we simply won't know until 2008.) John Broughton | Talk 16:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Simon12 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion in debates put on by self-important groups and TV stations in the business of getting the highest ratings (and therefore picking the candidates with the biggest "draw.") is a HORRIBLE method of determining who gets exposure in an online encyclopedia. Come on people. Does that even make sense to connect the two?

At any rate, the mindset of a group of elites setting the rules for which candidate will be given exposure to voters and which won't is appalling to many Americans. Also, remember that "minor" candidates have often add great depth to debates that are often heavily scripted and uninformative (remember the Perot debates in 1992? Perot shaped the national discussion.) I'll also remind you that Ronald Reagan famously stood up for the right of several others (Baker, Dole, Crane, etc.) to have a spot in that Nashua debate, where he said "I'm paying for this microphone!..." I think someone needs to do that about now, and remind some folks that NO ONE is paying for this article, and it should be fair to even the non-frontrunners. We can dicker over the length and quality of each entry, but let's just have entries and photos for all candidates who are actively (or about to start, officially) seeking the job, nationwide, okay? Why does WP always have to end up in drawn out, contrived "process" discussions that lead to bland, uninformative and INCOMPLETE articles? - Nhprman ^List 05:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nhprman - either you're willing to abide by the rules of Wikipedia, which include yielding (gracefully or otherwise) when it's clear one is in the minority, or you're not. If you're not, then Wikipedia may be the wrong place for you - you're quite possibly going to continue to be unhappy here. I'm proposing an RfC because I'm genuinely interested in what others think, and I'm open to changing my mind. I'm also open to not getting my way - the world doesn't revolve around what's in or not in a Wikipedia article. I suggest you consider the advantages of such an approach.

More importantly, the points you just made are fine to add to the RfC, once it's out - but at the moment, we're discussing how to frame that RfC - the questions we want to pose to others. Simon12 and I are agreed on a two-part RfC; can we focus on that for the moment? Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 14:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we not abide by any rules. It's not the rules that are the problem it's the reductionist [10] philosophy in interpreting those rules I take issue with, especially in political articles, and it's valid to bring up during this phase of the discussion. I've been around long enough to know that there are fundamental differences among editors, and WIDE disagreement on whether to have short and untilmately uninformative articles with high barriers for factual information (deletionism), or longer, richer articles with deeper analysis and a broad scope (inclusionism). Supporters of "frontrunners" like McCain, Guiliani and Romney shouldn't be voting to exclude proper entries for other candidates campaigning nationally like Hunter, Huckabee, Cox, Brownback. If they do, that would in no way be "encyclopedic." I hope people think about that while framing this question. My suggestion is to simply ask: "Should all candidates for president who are actively campaigning nationally, or have announced they plan to do so, recieve an entry in the same format (name, thumbnail photo, and a brief, non-POV written description)?" I think we need to err on the side of caution in political articles, to avoid POV-pushing by exclusion. Nhprman ^List 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Even this suggestion is not simple. First, very few candidates ever "actively campaign nationally" at this point - everyone is focused on 2-4 states, so that's not a good qualification, and even if it was, I don't know how you would objectively determine, especially at this early date, who has a "national" campaign. If the choice is to be inclusionary, the only objective measure I can think of is either FEC filings and/or filings in the specific states (which I doubt happens until much later in 2007). Either way, you are likely to get dozens of candidates, most of whom wouldn't even meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, yet we would have to include them, with a picture, web site, and paragraph. I have no problem listing everbody who files in a brief list at the bottom, but to make this article useful to the general reader, the big descriptions should be limited to a subset of candidates with an objective criteria. Simon12 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, as an RFC, the two points are fine; although I strenuously disagree with the tone of the RFC, I am willing to abide by its results. I will advertise this RFC to the talk page readers at the Democratic and third party pages, and at the main 2008 presidential candidate page, in order to get all opinions about this issue so that we can make this consistent amongst the subpages. It would also be appropriate to advertise it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Calwatch 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Calwatch - if you haven't already posted the RfC, perhaps we could discuss the language a bit more here, first. For example, I'm fine with Nphrman's question (except that I would strike "or have annouced they plan to do so", per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) as the first of the two questions in the RfC. There really isn't any need to rush things here, is there? John Broughton | Talk 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I added the "or have announced they plan to do so" is that this article has the word "potential" in it and deals with likely/potential candidates, like Romney and McCain, for instance, neither of whom are actual "candidates," in a formal sense until they file with the FEC as doing something other than working under an exploratory committee. Without the phrase, only Cox and arguably Rep. Hunter would be allowed at all here because both are "officially" in the race, but no others. As a further refinement, perhaps "publicly announced" should be the phrase, since you're right, we can't exactly look into their minds. - Nhprman ^List 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Huckabee will soon be deleted if there are no sources added

Just giving a heads up.

rewritten with a sourced statement. Simon12 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keating

I'm bumping Keating up to "Potential Candidates". He's in SC "exploring" (campaigning) today. That puts him beyond mentioning, IMO. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/16284419.htm -Umdunno 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cox

Why isnt he at the bottom with the other no--name candidates like Smith?

Read three sections above for current discussion Simon12 05:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New Year's proposal

I'd like to propose a compromise: adopt the following standard - All candidates for President who are actively campaigning nationally receive an entry in the same format (name, thumbnail photo, and a brief, non-POV written description). "Campaigning nationally" doesn't mean just sending out press releases, or appearing in a national newspaper story. Rather, it means having a large number of state organizations (at least being set up) and a large number of volunteers, and spending a significant amount of time and money on campaigning, including national travel. (Cox would qualify, by such criteria.)

Could I get a show of hands - support, oppose? John Broughton | Talk 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Support." Very nice. - Nhprman ^List 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also support. Very nice wording. Question: This means that the two Smiths would be kept under the category "Other"? I know that Michael Smith is only campaigning in Oregon, but about Richard I have no idea. 'J Klein ^{my talk my contributions} 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, the proposal doesn't call for removing anyone completely. It's certainly appropriate to list anyone who has officially filed, and to give a sentence's worth of info about them (location, occupation, whatever), plus an external link to their campaign site. I'd feel differently if, say, hundreds of people were to file, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least yet. John Broughton | Talk