Talk:Third-party and independent candidates for the 2008 United States presidential election/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Which parties to include?

Currently we have a candidate from the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which appears to be a single-state party. Should we really be including candidates from parties which not only don't have a theoretical chance of winning, but also (since they are from a single-state party) likely won't have a significant impact on the election as a whole? I'm leaving the entry for now, but it's something to think about for the future.... --Tim4christ17 ^talk 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That candidate used to be listed in the "Independents" section. Apparently an anonymous editor removed in October without anyone noticing or objecting (diff). There was a proposal in Template talk:USParty a while back to include only parties receiving at least 5,000 or 10,000 votes in the last Presidential election. I thought it seemed a reasonable idea. It might also be nice to have details here of the different parties' nominating procedures and restrict entries to candidates actually competing in primaries, caucuses or nominating conventions. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See following discussion topic. Korky Day 10:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The USA looks undemocratic to the world. Wikipedia should step back and describe without the usual USA bias.

The 2-party system is like the ocean to the USAmerican fish. You don't even realize that system makes your country a non-democracy. An encyclopedia with an unbiased world view would not discriminate among parties or candidates. In the discussion article above someone absurdly suggests that Wikipedia institute its own requirements for the USA presidency! (A certain number of votes for the party in the previous election.) Then another Wikipedian chimes in that it's reasonable. So you don't believe in every USA citizen having the right to run who meets the constitutional requirements? Furthermore, this article itself is proof of discrimination. Two other parties get their own parallel articles, but "third parties" (sic)(an innumerate term) are all ghettoized into one article. I propose they all be in one article (or as a second choice, each party gets its own article). If you vote on this proposal, please give your reasons. Korky Day 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no requirements for the US presidency -- we simply have requirements for subjects of encyclopedia entries, namely that they be notable and that information about them be verified by reliable sources. Many people who have the right to run for President do not have the right to an article on Wikipedia.

The fact that the Democrats and Republicans have their own articles is not proof of discrimination; it simply reflects reality, as an encyclopedia is supposed to. There is just more interest and information about Democrats and Republican candidates, most of whom are notable in their own right and one of whom will almost certainly be the next President. As a supporter of a minor party, I may bemoan the fact that politics in America is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats, but Wikipedia is not the place to do anything about that.

I oppose the proposal to combine all three articles into one since I feel it would be unwieldy. The Democrat and Republican articles are already rather long, and likely to get much longer in the year before the primaries even begin. On the other hand, splitting up this page into many separate articles would also be inconvenient, especially since most of these minor parties (a better term than third, as you mention) have very little information on potential candidates. Information on all of them, for the foreseeable future, can more easily, elegantly, and efficiently be collected here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David Schaich, for your comments. Please consider the possibility that you're being unintentionally defeatist or even masochistic, like many USA non-duopolists. Why not help create a fair fix to the problem? Your only argument with any merit is that the article would be too long. Your other arguments are all in the category of self-fulfilling prophesies. Out of time. More later. Korky Day 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. You insinuate that an encyclopedia is not the place to do something about the unfair political system. Exactly the opposite is true. People who are tired of the unfair, corrupt, bought, undemocratic mainstream media will turn naturally to an encyclopedia to try to find a little sanity, a little objectivity. You seem to think that we have to copy all that bias which is in the mainstream media.

You write, "Democrats and Republican candidates, . . . one of whom will almost certainly be the next President." That is a prediction. Predictions are not the proper function of an encyclopedia. Nor are judgements of which candidates are "notable". I say all the candidates are notable because the readers want to know who the candidates are. Why not tell them in an unbiased way? Why do you have to say, in effect, "Here are the candidates who have a chance of winning--and over there are the hopeless candidates."? That's not a neutral point of view. That's being a fortune teller. Worse, you are being a tool of the duopoly by favouring their candidates over your own. I'm not saying you have to have an equal amount of information about each one. If we can get too little information about some candidates, then so be it.

I will concede that not everyone deserves encyclopedia coverage who blurts out in some bar at one in the morning that they have suddenly decided to run for president. No, they must have some credibility that they will actually register as a candidate (including write-in candidacies), campaign for the office, get on the ballot in one or more states or territories, and/or be nominated by a party, etc. However, it is not our job to censor candidates from the list based on how successful they are predicted to be. Nor is it our job to banish anyone to the hopeless list. The encyclopedia writer does not predict, though she may report others' predictions. Also, she may report on what the candidate has done or has not done SO FAR.

In conclusion, here is my best suggestion so far, taking into account your valid points: We have one article summarizing all the candidates, without bias or prediction. We have a maximum number of words for each candidate, maybe 2000 or 3000 words, or whatever you want. Then we have a separate article for each candidate who has additional information of interest to the public (more than the maximum number of words, plus any information not very relevant to the candidacy, such as details of Clint Eastwood's movies, if he were to run for president). Is that a good solution for your (and my) concerns? Sorry, my log-in expired while I was writing that. Korky Day 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, here it is, 6 months later--and no one's showing the slightest interest in making this article unbiased as I've asked for above. Then the USA deserves what it's going to get: more pseudo-democracy, while the rest of the world pushes way ahead of you. Korky Day 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell. Not in the english wiki anyway.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Susie Flynn be included

Should Susie be included? Probably not, but just wondering... 71.38.17.212 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Even though she's a kid she's running for President...so yeah. --Revolución hablar ver 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't you have to be voting age to be elected? If I, a Canadian born and raised, declared candidacy, would you list me? -- Zanimum 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, we have an actual test case from the last presidential election to compare this to. In 2004, the Socialist Workers Party nominated Roger Calero and Arrin Hawkins for president and vice president. Calero was not even a U.S. citizen (much less native-born as required by the Constitution), and Hawkins was under the Constitutional minimum age of 35 years old. However, they did manage to get listed on the ballot in 5 states; I would consider anyone who is listed on the general election ballot for president in at least one state to be sufficiently notable to warrant being listed in an article such as this. However, Susie Flynn isn't going to get listed on any general election ballots, because she's not a real candidate or even a real person. She's a fictional character. [1] Any coverage of her in Wikipedia should be under the assumption that she is a member of Category:Fictional politicians, not as an actual candidate. --Metropolitan90 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NSM

I removed them. Does anyone have objections to that? I did not think the party was notable ( I think it's disgusting, too). --Revolución hablar ver 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's disgusting, but it's notable. I have reinserted the info, with refs. Heather 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any party that's taking the time to run, no matter how far from the mainstream, should be included. -- Zanimum 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

spam tag

I added the spam tag {{Cleanup-spam}} because anybody with $10 a month can buy a "MPS in 08" web URL and then link her/his site to wikipedia. Is there some way to weed out spammers and non-notable candidates? ( PS I understand this tag may be seen by some as overly agressive but that is not my intent. I just think some of these candidates may be non-notable and/or non-candidates and would like to invite the anti-spam gnomes to evaluate. 2008 will see a lot of people pretending to run who are not in any way shape or form actually running. Might as well discuss this now. MPS 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point it would be good to require a reference to some sort of media coverage of each candidate. That should be a pretty low bar, though it's probably a bit early to phase it in at the moment. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to list only candidates (under the "Independents" heading) that can be verified as having filed with the FEC. --JayJasper 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WP:WPSPAM project team the {{Cleanup-spam}} has brought this article to my attention. In my opinion the links to sites are bordeline spam/boderline notable. I belive that if a Candidate has his own Wikipedia Article then his campaign website will be linked to from there, if they don't have their own WP article there is no justification for including an External Link to their site. This article should just list the candidates with an image. If there is agreement on this I am happy to to this. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would go a step farther than a listing and an image. I think verification of a candidates's FEC filing status or of a significant draft effort on a potential candidates' behalf, along with at least one reference to media coverage (per David Schaich) would be sufficient for establishing notability. Good point about external links regarding candidates who have a WP article. --JayJasper 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Thanks, Nick

George Phillies entry

George Phillies never served as LNC chair, as is clear in the George Phillies page. 71.61.81.160 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

George Phillies Has never served as LNC chair but he was a candidate in 2002 for the position [2]. the reference to the 2002 LNC chair election had been included but was unfortunately edited out, I went ahead and restored it. Highground79 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)