Jump to content

Talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Elections are not over!

What I am waiting for is for indictments to come down against Barack Obama for his lifelong and Presidential campaign dealings, which would disqualify him from the race.

If such happens, then the people on the Republican side, like Huckabee and Romney, also, deserve another shot at the race.

Wikipedia taking these people's names off of their list and removing links, political, and campaign information about these men was, in my opinion, premature.

Any comments?

(I am planing to amend the "United States presidential election, 2008" page. If such amendment is in error at least my comments will remain here in the discussion page. My complaint is that information about the other candidates was removed too soon. Especially with a possible indictment coming down on Barack Obama for campaign fraud and other violations of the law!)

Lchow (TN) (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) lchow (TN)

Yeah I've a comment. What candidates information have we deleted from this article, that you're concerned about? Also, (correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be suggesting this article is somehow Pro-John McCain & Pro-Barack Obama. The article is actually NPOV (i.e. apolitical). Also, I've never heard anything about an impending Obama indictment. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case...

Please people, do not add McCain & Obama to the top of the article. The places are reserved for the person who wins the presidential election, and the person who's the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Past elections that have split significantly three ways feature all three contenders up at top, and if an independent or third-party candidates makes a significant showing, the article can always be edited to reflect it. This is a dynamic media and it should reflect the reality of the moment, and right now the reality is that Obama and McCain are the two big players in this election. --Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It does say "nominee 1" and "nominee 2", not "winner" and "runner-up". -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct. The left slot is for the election winner, the right slot is for the election runner up. A third (or fourth) candidate (particulary if the win any electoral votes) can be added underneath. Why can't ya'll be patient & wait until November 4, 2008? For all we know, Bob Barr could win the election & Ralph Nader be the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the syntax of the template. It uses "nominee 1" and "nominee2", not "winner" and "runner-up". I just don't see where the idea that it has to wait until after the election comes from. -Rrius (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well, have it your (plural) way. I've given up trying. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean my question in a snarky or rhetorical way; I'm just asking where the notion comes from. I know New Zealand general election, 2008 has had its PM candidates in the same infobox template for ages, and that election is also likely to be in autumn. -Rrius (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
1) The previous United States presidential election articles, use their top spots for the Election Results. 2) Obama & McCain aren't their respective parties presidential nominees, yet. 3) There's other parties, in this election & thus it's crystal balling to have the Democrats & Republicans presumptive nominees at the top of the article. Trust me, you're going to have partison editors out there, demanding their candidate be at the top-left of the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I don't think the present template was in place before this election year. 2) They will almost undoubtedly be the nominee, they're presumptive. 3) The other parties will likely get less than 10% of the vote combined, they are not one of the two major parties. Just wanted to get my two cents in. =) Timmeh! 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Who says that the Libertarian Party is not a major party? That's simply not true. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we leave it as is, but if it becomes a problem, we should remove the pictures. -Rrius (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. PS- Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk)

Bob Barr

As you can see the Article Lists Barack Obama, and John McCain as the two 'major' Candidates in the infobox, to play it safe being that Bob Barr has 9% already in National Polls, should we not add him to the Box? I mean hes outdoing Ralph Nader three to one, polls place nader only with 3% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we hold off because Barr just won the the Libertarian nomination and it is still rather early in the process (therefore, the polling is not totally reliable). -Rrius (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Which polls are you referring to? Can you link them? Timmeh! 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am skeptical. Rasmussen has them at 6% and 4% respectively: [1], and people tend to overstate how much they will vote for third party candidates. I say they both remain out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would make some sense to use a neutral standard such as the 15% cutoff used by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I know it is arbitrary, but so too would any other solution short of highlighting everyone on who made his or her way on to any state's ballot. -Rrius (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be no candidates at the top of the Article, until November 4, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why that's the case, if the tags used are nominee 1 and nominee 2 (as opposed to winner and runner-up, as used in past elections) and no other candidates have reached 10% in the national polls (which, even if they had, tend to overstate support--case in point: in a Gallup poll before the 1992 election, Ross Perot registered 28% and ended up getting less than 20% of the vote)? What's your logic? I really don't understand why it makes sense to wait for 4 November 2007 to do anything. I'm with Rrius; I'm adding the pictures, and unless you can provide me with a rationale for omitting them, they should stay up. I really hope this isn't just your getting upset because your candidate isn't up there... Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Having the Democratic & Republican presumptive presidential nominees in the TopInfobox gives the 'frist glance impression' that they're the top-2 finishers in the Election (which is crystal balling). PS- Guaranteed, McCain-leaning editors will switch his (McCain) image to the left side & Obama-leaning editors will switch them back; etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but let's face it--it's pretty unlikely any third party candidate will register more than 5% of the vote, and even that is a stretch. It happens once in blue moon, and it likely won't happen in this election. Whether McCain or Obama supporters reverse the placement of the images or not is irrelevant; the article should still convey graphically who the two major-party candidates are.

Tenchi2 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether the candidates should be represented in images; the question is whether those images should be in the infobox. Whether there are edit wars over placement is an issue whether you think it's relevant or not. Edit wars destabilize the article distract editors from making meaningful edits. Many edit wars lead to page protection, which means editors cannot make edits. Anyway, the discussion is now being dealt with below. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidates in the Infobox

The candidates have been removed from the infobox again. I am now of the opinion that GoodDay and the new editor, Fifty7, are right. In the past the candidates have been left off until there is a general election winner. In addition to edit wars between those who want the candidates and those who do not, there will be edit wars over whose candidate goes on the left (which is where the winner goes after the election) and which minor parties should be included. Frankly, any method of choosing could be validly accused of being POV. The simplest answer is to do what has been done before: add the names at the end of the election. -Rrius (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Until November 4th, then. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All right, I understand. I was under the impression that we were waiting for the primaries to be over to add the faces in. Luckily, I wasn't involved in the edit war -- I edited it once and opted to discuss the matter here, so no war for me. =) -- Frightwolf (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's likely gonna be quite a struggle to keep those images off, when the Republican & Democratcs nominate their respective candidates. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone could put an appropriate comment in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think so far we've avoided war; it's been more like a border skirmish. The only time I restored the pictures, I did it to restore a bunch of intermediate edits. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No prob. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I completely disagree with this line of reasoning. It is no more a violation of the NPOV guidelines to put these images up than it is to decide, in previous elections, who was a "major" candidate (you will notice Ross Perot in some years, despite not getting any electoral votes). The question should come down to this: is the media calling them a major candidate? Are the major websites, television stations, and newspapers giving them credit for being major? I am not talking in the sense of "they have some articles about them" - I'm talking about, is the media giving them any realistic chance of winning in November? Are they on the electoral maps that are printed? Are they even on the ballot in every state? I strongly suggest we hold a poll and an RFC on this issue, as it will not be resolved, and will be constantly changed from here to early November unless we settle it permanently. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What's to settle? We simply wait until the Presidential Election results. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the Reform, Libertarian, Green, and Communist candidates be in the infobox? Why limit the list to "major-party" candidates? At what point is a candidate as important as Perot, who is in the 1992 infobox? What is your answer for when someone complains that McCain is in the "loser" slot? -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Goodday - that's not an argument, 2) Rrius - I believe this is reductio ad absurdium. In fact, you just argued my point for me, unless you are willing to go remove the Perot-Republican-Democrat candidate images from previous elections, or add the communist ones. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer the Infobox having only the presidnetial candidates who receive Electoral Votes. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is, interestingly, not the way consensus has established it in the past. So you'd like to change consensus then? Unless you are going to remove Perot from 1992, and add Jonathon Edwards to 2000, then you have no ground to make your argument. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually want Perot removed from United States presidential election, 1992; Who's Jonathan Edwards? GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not reductio ad absurdium; these issues are going to come up. We have already had Bob Barr added. What I am trying to do is to get to the central issue, and you didn't answer any of the questions. As for 1992, I don't believe I am making your point. That article was written long after it happened, and the pictures on the other articles were not put up until after the election. During the 2000 election campaign, reasonable cases could have made that Nader, and to a lesser degree Buchanan, should have been included on the list.
The big problem here is that we will have to deal with an ongoing edit war from August (at the latest) to November. I guess I'll just sit back and let the rest of you deal with it; I'm not going to revert Spartan's edits on this or anyone else's. -21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Guranteed Spartan. McCain leaning editors will switch the image around & Obama leaning editors will switch them back. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think McCain's image should be first, simply because he's the nominee of the incumbent party, and that's the rule used in articles about other upcoming elections (Next Australian federal election, Next United Kingdom general election). And I'm an Obama supporter. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep images off until the general election debates, then add all those who qualify for them. There's just something that feels wrong about just putting the Dem and GOP presumptive nominees there, assuming the candidates from the two major parties are inherently entitled to either mantle of winner or runner-up. With all that has gone on, and the incredible amount of enthusiasm and coverage about this election, it isn't unreasonable to assume a "third party" nominee could garner substantive popular vote support or a handful of electoral votes. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It all comes back to my original argument. Don't add images to the TopInfobox until after the presidential election. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm for that. Agreed with GoodDay. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To the Pollsters below: Please check over the other US presidential election articles: United States presidential election, 2004, United States presidential election, 2000 etc & reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should put the Democratic Party and the Republican Party Candidates right now and wait after the elections if the third party candidates like Bob Barr get at least one or two electoral votes then we should that candidate/s in the infobox Agree? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Discussion is above.

Include images from two major parties as well as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader

  1. I am for either this or no pictures until after the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. A good standard is to include any candidate that is on the ballot in enough states to potentially win. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree with No. 1 to do otherwise would be biased. Uwmad (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. I say we include them, because how do we know that they won't get electoral votes or a lot of popular votes? We cannot just assume that, even tho we know they likely won't get much. But theoretically they could, and not having them is like calling them non-candidates. Theoretically, because the election hasn't happened yet, Bob Barr or Nader could get 270. However, when those candidates win(as opposed to get from faithless electors giving them a vote or two) no electoral votes, and marginal popular votes, then we won't have them in the box.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates from two major parties now

  1. Good idea. All these candidates who are from parties which have qualified for major funding and have qualified for debates in the previous decade. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes, I think it's OK to do so now. conman33 (. . .talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, there's no reason not to. What we do here will likely set the precedent for future presidential elections since this template was not in use during the previous elections. It's also worth noting that this particular template (Template:Infobox Election) was not yet in existence until 2007 so it obviously could not have been used in the 2004 and 2000 election pages. Timmeh! 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. I think this is the best option as well, although I'd also be happy with the choice below (and if a third party candidate happens to reach Ross Perot/George Wallace style support, I think that's the option we should go for). Look at the articles for upcoming elections in other countries (Next Australian federal election, New Zealand general election, 2008, Next United Kingdom general election). It's not crystal balling, these two candidates will be the major candidates for the 2008 Election (barring some major turn of events), and again, the three other articles I've linked include candidates who could easily be ousted by the time the election comes around (I seriously doubt Brendan Nelson, the Australian opposition leader, is going to last more than a couple more months). In terms of the order of the candidates, I think John McCain should be first, simply because he is the incumbent party's nominee, which is the format used in other articles about elections that haven't happened yet. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Agree with the above. They're the two most important candidates in the election, at least at the moment. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Important in what context? Apparently 18 million voters are "non-important". AP poll - Nader does not tip election. Not to mention Barr and the Green Party. Uwmad (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Agree with No. 4. --Jedravent (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. This should be the course of action until something major changes (Barr or Nader gets invited to major debates, Clinton declares as an independent, something unexpected like that). --Kudzu1 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: The Libertarian Party IS a major party and therefore, those who are for this should support Bob Barr being included. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: As much I would like it to be, it's not. No Libertarian Party candidate has ever been elected to the presidency or even come close. --Kudzu1 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. I think including Barr and Nader is a bit of a POV. Third party candidates arent included for other years unless they got electoral votes, and there is no reason to think that Barr of Nader will. It's far too early to suppose that either one of them will get a significant number of votes nationally, let alone in the electoral college, or whether they'd get much more than other third-party candidates like Baldwin or McKinney, presuming she's the Green candidate. William Quill (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. If not, Include images of candidates who qualify for major debates, then this Gang14 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Include images of candidates who qualify for major debates

  1. Doable, though my second choice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm in favor of this. That means McCain and Obama now, since it's inconceivable they won't be included. --Kudzu1 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. This is my preferred idea. This or a set plan where they poll above 15% or could win at least one electoral vote. Perot polled above 15% and Wallace won some electoral votes. But debates works because they generally have a 10-15% threshold in polling. I wish the third parties were more significant, but the reality is they aren't and shouldn't be crowding up the page.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. It's the fairest way because these are the people the American people remember from the campaign Gang14 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment If not this then just the two major candidatesGang14 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Include no images now

  1. Wait until after the 2008 Presidential election (see the other US presidential election articles ,1788 to 2004). GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Well, the articles from 1788-2000 were written after the elections took place, and taking a look at the revision history for the 2004 article, the infobox didn't even exist back then (and the 2004 article wasn't exacty featured artice status back then either) [2]. It's hardly a precedent. Moreso, if you look at the edits from around September/October, there is a table a the top of the article which DOES list George Bush as the republican nominee and John Kerry as the democratic nominee (plus various other third party candidates below) [3]. Cyclone49 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: How the other articles did it, isn't important. Their end result is. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm for either this or Obama/McCain/Barr/Nader. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I like this or just the two main parties as a second alternative. Until we get closer to November its unclear how much of an impact the third parties and independents will have. Seen0288 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. For reasons stated in prior discussion. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Nothing's decided yet, also inclusion of only two presumtive candidates would be in violation of NPOV, not to mention the problems of who goes in which slot...--Caranorn (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Ditto the comments of GoodDay and Caranorn. It is not only a violation of WP:NPOV but WP:FUTURE as well to feature only the two presumptive candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. This is the best compromise and is my second choice. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Unless Barr, Nader, and McKinney are included, I see no reason to include Obama and McCain. To do otherwise would show bias.Uwmad (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox format suggestion - some help?

I tried to make an infobox for this article that included all of the six candidates (two major, four significant minor), but I had a lot of trouble. Basically, what I wanted to do was to list the major candidates (those with at least 15% support) in alphabetical order, then separately (below the major candidates) list the minor candidates (those from one of the significant third parties - the ones with voter registration over 100,000 - and significant independents - any with at least 2% support nationally) in alphabetical order. "Major Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of John McCain and Barack Obama with a reference to the criteria for major candidacy, and "Minor Candidates" was to be a title above the heads of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and the Green Party logo (they have not yet determined their candidate) with a reference to the criteria for minor candidacy. Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to separate the two major candidates and the four minor. I kept ending up with Chuck Baldwin's head next to Barack Obama's. I eventually gave up and decided to label each candidate as either major or minor, with major candidates' status bolded. I'm going to show what I have here, but if anyone can help design my original idea for the infobox, it would greatly be appreciated.

IMHO, it's something to consider in November. PS- I'd suggest using the electoral votes as the bar for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Waiting until November would defeat the purpose, in this case. I think this is the infobox that should be used, just with a row of two (McCain/Obama) followed by a row of four (Baldwin/Barr/Nader/Green Nominee), unless one of the four should meet the official general election debates' standard of major candidacy sometime between now and Election Day. I just don't know how to separate it into a row of two and a row of four, only two rows of three. -- Fifty7 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember, the only thing I prefer in the Infobox (until November) is the USA electoral map. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and I agreed with that. But since that's not what is going to happen, I figure we should do our best to reflect the reality of the situation rather than contribute to the willful ignorance of minor candidacies to the benefit of the two major parties in what amounts to an article with a technically non-neutral point of view:. I want to note, I am not a supporter of one of the third party candidates, I'm actually a fervent Obama supporter. I just think that the article should be accurate, and to be accurate, it should label the major candidates and any minor candidates that have any kind of impact on the national election. The Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are recognized as the three Third Parties in America, and Nader is a prominent figure who has enough support to merit mention without being nominated by one of the minor three. While they are certainly of lesser status than the Democratic and Republican presumptive nominees, there is historic and contemporary precedent for a third candidate to break through into that 'major candidacy' status, and the four minor candidates are certainly of a higher status than, say, the Socialist Party USA's nominee. So I think we should reflect that.

I'm just trying to figure out how to do it in rows of two then four. x_x Fifty7 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just one voice in all of this. Do as you see fit; it doesn't hurt to experiment. I'll be watching, to see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I wouldn't dare try to change this without input from others who have been working on the article. You wouldn't happen to know how to structure the info box in the way I'm trying, would you? I figure it would look much more reasonable if it visibly separated "Major Candidates" and "Minor Candidates". Fifty7 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to ask somebody else. I don't know how to make/fix/change Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hold on a minute, I already made it its on the pageAndrew L. Lessig III 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I didn't think it was sufficient. Fifty7 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The info box looks good to me. The only thing I noticed is that the candidates' pictures are sized differently causing the lines below to not be in line with one another. I do not know too much about editing info boxes and images, but if possible resizing the pictures would make it look a lot cleaner IMO. Seen0288 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's the result of resizing. I could externally edit all the pictures and upload them specifically for this infobox though. Are there any objections to using this in the article? Remember that there's no precedent for pre-election use of a US Presidential Election Infobox, so this kind of inclusion would be a positive thing to do. Fifty7 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do question the need to label them "major" and "minor" or any such. It made sense with two infoboxes because we needed to explain why there was all of a sudden a whole other group of candidates. By putting them in one box, I think we can leave it to the article to explain to people who don't already know that the Democrats and Republicans are the major parties.
Two motivations for the labeling - there's specific criteria involved, and so that there isn't any controversy or presumed non-neutral motivation over the notion of putting Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee "in the same league" as Obama and McCain. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't we let the fact that they are not Democrats or Republicans (and the body of the article) make that point? At the very least can we not call them "third parties" as is done for the Lib Dems on UK general election pages? -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, are we leaving the infobox on this page or can we either delete it or move it to a sandbox? I volunteer to use mine. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, it'll preserve it without taking up room here. I'm about to upload the resized pictures now, I'll note here when the infobox is ready to be moved to both the article (which I'll do) and your sandbox. Fifty7 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it's updated. Moving to the article now. Feel free to remove from here.
I think it's great that you all reached a compromise like this. I think it looks great right now with the six candidates up there. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What are your criteria for minor/major party? The Libertarian Party IS a major party. Rational Renegade (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All candidates' pictures

Why do we have the minor candidates included on the side box? Shouldn't we go back and update the 2004 election page and 2000 page to make it suitable for them all? I mean, come on. If Barr has less than 10% I don't think he has any chance in winning. All their faces on the page makes this article look like it's full of wayyyy too much information. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk and I give TOTAL credit to the person responsible for taking the time to make such a side info box for the article, I'm just voicing my opinion in saying that this article looks way too crowded with all other candidates besides McCain and Obama. If anything, I think Nader deserves to be in the 2000 election info box because there was the controversy surrounding how he supposedly "stole" votes from Gore in Florida. I see Perot is in the 1992 election box. Again, please don't think I'm being rude, I'm just voicing what I think should be done. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ADDING TO MY OWN COMMENT: I saw that the 1968 election has Wallace included in the info box because he actually won electoral votes and was a big part in how the electoral college was tallied, and in 1992's election Perot got a huge amount of the popular vote. I'm just saying the few million that Barr, McKinney, and etc. will gather doesn't look like it will be as huge as Wallace and Perot's efforts. I give them lots of respect for running, but I'm just saying the info box shouldn't be as big as it is right now. Am I crazy for thinking this or are there others with me? If not, I'll just shut up : ) conman33 (. . .talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an ongoing elections; those others are over. When this one is done there will be a strong sentiment to drop it down to the two bigs. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to add the minor party candidates in, looking at the recent poll above. This looks like POV-pushing to me. Harro5 07:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If we are going to add all the candidates, then why not the Socialist, Communist, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus so I reverted so this can be discussed. There's really no reason to add the minor party candidates. If we added them, we'd have to go back to the previous year's elections and add them. Timmeh! 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refer back to the above section that discussed this new infobox at length. The only reason that ONLY Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee were added was because they met specific criteria. Also, please stop referencing other US Presidential Election articles, as (again) was said in the above section, this is the first time an article was of decent quality/had an infobox before the election took place. There is no precedent in place. There are not two tiers to the candidates ('Democratic/Republican' and 'not') but rather three (Major (Democratic/Republican), Minor (Constitution, Green, Libertarian, and Nader), and fringe (those that obviously would not be included, such as the candidate from Socialist Party USA or the American Nazi candidate). As was said above again, the only thing this has to do with POV is eliminating any chance of a technical non-neutral point of view by including only the major candidates. We attempted to visually separate the major and minor candidates, but could not make a row of two then a row of four in the infobox, so labeling is the next best thing. If there is a consensus that can debunk the reasons behind this, then it should be removed. Until then, it should stay, as there is nothing controversial or factually dishonest about it, and it is in fact neutral. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't see that discussion. I just looked at this section. Timmeh! 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. It used to be MUCH more obvious because the experimental infobox used to be on the talk-page, but it's since been removed to a user's sandbox so as not to clutter the page. Fifty7 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted it from the talk because the discussion was done and the experimental infobox made the real one. I figured it served no purpose anymore. -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include a candidate unless they poll above 15%, have a chance of winning a congressional district, or an electoral vote. Otherwise, this is just clutter and makes them look more significant than they are.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Refer to discussion above. Fifty7 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I did look at it. Thank you very much. I am introducing a new standard that consensus should consider.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The smaller party contenders should not have the right to be at the top. First of all they arent going to win, Im not trying to attack them on their third party status but they dont have a well enough NATIONAL support nor attention to be up on top. Does anyone really think that Bob Barr is going to be elected President? And if people want to put the smaller people on top then lets put everybody who is running for office up their. Somebody needs to fix this ASAP and those above who say that those runners meet criteria that is nonsence. MarkDonna (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fogive me for harping on this folks. If no candidates were added until the election (in November), we'd have less hassle over who belongs & who doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Who introduced this new infobox format and criteria? It's complete nonsense. This needs to be redone. We need to only put up the viable candidates or not put up any at all until the election. Timmeh! 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And believe me. Editors will bicker over which candidate belongs on the left-side (McCain or Obama). Trust me, having no candidates (until November 4) is the best way forward. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is to include all those who will have an impact on the election, not just those who can win (by that logic, why include McCain?), and that means the nominees of the parties with voter registration of at least 100,000, widespread ballot access, and/or standing in national polls. Hell, Barr and Nader make up 8% of decided voters in national polls right now. Editing the article so that only McCain and Obama are mentioned will be considered vandalism without a strong consensus on the talk page. At the very least, read the damned talk page discussions on the issue before deciding that your opinion of it as "nonsense" is common sense. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep telling us to refer to the discussion above? There really was no consensus reached. You just went ahead and changed the infobox format to fit your personal needs. The poll above clearly shows that you are the only one who believes that the minor party candidates should be in the infobox. On the other hand, 7 people think only Obama and McCain should be included while 5 support not adding any pictures until the election. I think we need to actually reach consensus before making changes here. Timmeh! 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton??

Why was Clinton's image added to the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism, you were right to remove it. -- Fifty7 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey I'm running too

Would my picture be at the top along with Obama, McCain and all the other crazies included for no reason whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.77.198 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, who are you? GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a troll, GoodDay. Fifty7 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone who's using hyperbole or whatever you want to call it to make a point. Those guys are a footnote. A foreigner who reads this article might think they have a chance. (189.148.77.198 (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC))
That person would have to be incapable of reading to think that. The point is to list those on the ballot, those who will have an impact on the outcome of the election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party candidates?

Why are so many minor candidates in the box with Obama and McCain? It's not needed. Heismanhoosier (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is ridiculous to have minor candidates on the top and makes the page look laughable. It also distorts the entire page. I mean the gigantic "image not available" for the Green Party is just too much. TigerManXL (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there was a supposed "consensus" according to User:Fifty7, when there really was no consensus. There was a poll where the majority of people voted for either just Obama and McCain to be in the infobox or voted for nobody to be there until the election. Fifty7 just changed the infobox on his own and without consensus, and you were right to remove the third party candidates, TigerManXL. Now, we need to discuss whether to keep the major party candidates in the infobox or just remove them all until November. Timmeh! 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a fellow who's been continously claiming that the Libertarian Pary is a major party, like the Democratic & Republican parties. When did the Libs get a candidate elected President & Vice President? PS- It's true, there was no consensus to add candidates to the Infobox. There was a 7 to 7 split, for adding McCain & Obama VS adding nobody. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party is not a major party. However, if it begins to gain in the polls so much that Bob Barr gets 15% in the polls or more, then I'd consider the Libertarian Party as a major party in this election. But for now, we should put up Obama and McCain and try to reach a consensus. It was actually 7 to 5 for adding the two major candidates vs. adding nobody. The sixth one for adding nobody is a second choice, and it is also mine after keeping Obama and McCain. We need to reach a consensus though, and I see no reason why we can't keep just Obama and McCain in the infobox, in alphabetical order. Timmeh! 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
But a majority of editors here, don't want Bob Barr's image in the Infobox. They just want McCain & Obama. Your edit might get viewed as political PoV pushing & could be treated as vandalism. You shouldn't be forcing your wants onto the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party is not getting 15% in the polls, is it? It's not even getting 5%. It's not a major party. Timmeh! 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, parties that have automatic ballot access in states are not necessary labeled "major". They are labeled "official" parties or (surprise, surprise) "parties entitled to automatic ballot access". Second, the Greens also have automatic ballot access in several states. Your measure has not received a consensus yet, so stop reverting. You have already reverted at least three times, so you are in danger of being blocked per WP:3RR.-Rrius (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any states that require a party to have elected a president in order to be considered 'major'. Most have other criteria such as obtaining 2% in a recent gubernatorial election. If everyone wants major party candidates included, then maybe the debate should be over the definition of 'major'. Thanks! Rational Renegade (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't know of any states that require a party to have obtained some arbitrary percentage of some private polling company’s research. Rational Renegade (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not too big of a person to refrain from saying "I told you so". I said we would have this debate if we put up pictures. I even said we would have to justify putting up some minor parties but not others (reductio ad absurdium, my foot). That said, we are making a dog's breakfast of this thing by talking about "major" or "minor". We either need a real criteria or none at all. I suggest somehow tying the infobox to being on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes. If we only look at this election, the Libertarians are there, the Constitution and Green parties probably will end up there, and Nader probably will, too. We could also look at contemporary parties that have met that threshold in any of the past three elections plus this one (because that is easier than keeping up with this year's ballot access news). I know that would bring in the Constitution party, and might bring in the other two.

Another suggestion is to keep the words in the infobox for everyone, but remove the images. It may have less of the psychological effect of putting minor-party candidates on the same plane as the majors, while maintaining the NPOV presentation of all candidates who may have an affect on the election.

The notion of excluding the three significant minor parties and Nader from the infobox smacks of POV to me. If these candidates are so insignificant, remove them from the article altogether. I think some people are assuming that if we put six candidates in the box before the election, they will still be there afterwards. I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. The box is serving a different purpose now than it will after 8 November 4 November. Now it is a navigation guide to the people involved in the election. Later, it will a historical summary of the significant results.

In any event, I maintain that the best thing is to remove references to candidates from the infobox altogether. This is otherwise going to be a five-month collection of edit wars. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, have no candidates in the Infobox until after November 4th (prez election). GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There will only be edit warring until the election if we leave the pictures there. They should be removed. Timmeh! 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea because it would remove a very valuable source of quick information about the candidates. We shouldn't just give up on having a thoroughly informative article just because there are conflicts over who should be included. Instead, we should try to work out this conflict. Ultimately, if we can develop some sort of criteria for inclusion, it will prevent similar conflicts in the future and might also resolve any conflicts there are over historical contests. That said, removing the pictures might reduce some of the propagandistic effect of the infobox, though it still diminishes the overall quality of the article. Theshibboleth (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright. If it's possible, can we have the two major party candidates like they are now, and provide information on the other third party candidates without pictures so we don't clutter it up and make them all seem to have an equal chance of winning? Timmeh! 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, you need to turn "party_colour" off because the colour lines will be one column to the left of where they should be. It will also look strange because we will have two with pictures and one with no picture on the top line and three with no pictures on the second. It is not, as far as I can tell, possible to put all four minor party candidates on the second line. Using no pictures would work better. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Define "equal chance of winning". The Libertarian Party is already on enough ballots to potentially win. I don't think three or four or five images in the info box is cluttered. Why don't we just put the Great Seal there like on the US President page? Rational Renegade (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd to hold the standard at "has a chance of winning." Right now only two of the candidates do, that is obvious, but those two candidates could account for as little as 90% of the popular vote in November! In an election that could be very, very close in the popular vote, no less. If we are going to have any candidates in the infobox, then we should have all those on the ballot who will have an impact on the outcome of the election. I would much rather see no candidates in there until after the election, but if we must have candidates in there, then this is the standard we must follow. -- Fifty7 (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a response to me, I was misunderstood. I mean a theoretical chance of winning 270 electoral votes. If a person is not on ballots in states representing 270, he or she cannot win. Under that metric, three candidates can win: Barr, McCain, and Obama. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like everyone agrees that we don't need any pictures there now. Am I correct in saying this? If so, someone can remove them until November. Timmeh! 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As in no images and no text, no images and text for McCain and Obama, or no images but text for all six? -Rrius (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No Images and no text. I'm pretty sure that's what you wanted right? Timmeh! 03:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's what I want, I just haven't been following closely enough to know what the current "whip count" is. Should we do a new poll? -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I read through the discussion, and it seems the only one opposed to removing all the candidates is Theshibboleth. I do not mind if the candidates are removed, but Theshibboleth does bring up a very good point in his post above. Timmeh! 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that we have information about and images of each of the candidates in the body tends to limit the importance of having the info and images in the infobox. Admittedly, the article won't be as pretty, but stability is also a virtue. Also, the fact that we will eventually have images in the infobox makes it less problematic for me. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is responsible for staying neutral, but it's also charged with assessing notoreity. This seems to be a controversial issue for editors here so I suggest we use articles on past elections as a guide. This will ultimately be a historical article and should be written with that in mind. What sort of result would cause us to decide to include an individual. Anderson received 6.6% of the vote in 1980, but his photo is not in the infobox. Perot is in the box for 1992, but not 1996. He received 18.9% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996. Elections where third party candidates won states: Wallace in 1968, Byrd in 1960, Thurman in 1948, Follete in 1924, and Roosevelt in 1912 are examples. The precedent appears to have been set to include candidates who either carry a state or receive at least 10% of the popular vote. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to include photos of candidates polling 10% or who are polling first or second in any one state. --Aranae (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the criteria could be that the third party candidate actually placed second or was placing second in polls in some states... although I'm not sure it makes sense to include segregationist candidates that only carry one state... or we could say if the candidate polls half or a third of the second place candidate's percent of voters who say they will vote for him. I believe this would include Perot and of course Taft in 1912. Theshibboleth (talk)
I propose finding a good place to have the historical discussion and then having it there. Otherwise, even more issues will get intermingled than are already getting jumbled up in this discussion. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
First, if the minor-party candidates were not notable enough, they would not be mentioned in the article. Also, you are using post election practice to determine how to cover this during the election. There is no compelling reason to do so. The fact is, we don't know what will end up happening, and using polling is not going to convince enough editors to put this issue to bed. If you are going to come up with a reason to show some but not all of the notable candidates, you need one that is not arbitrary. Ten percent or carrying a state is most decidedly arbitrary. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Not everything in the article can possibly fit in the infobox. Only the most notable information in the article is put there to be a quick "guide" to the rest of the article. As for polling, it is not the best gauge of current public opinion, but it is the best gauge of current public opinion that we have available to us. The infobox format also includes fields for polls, which is also a compelling reason to use them. I have to agree with Aranae. His specifications for inclusion are actually based on past elections and articles, and the old specifications were based on absolutely nothing. In considering which candidates to put in the infobox, Aranae outlines it best. Furthermore, I have a proposition that hopefully everyone can agree on: If the infobox dispute is not resolved one week from today with a clear consensus, the candidates' information and pictures will be removed until the election. Timmeh! 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's reasonable (the 1-week thingy). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Polling may be the best gauge of public opinion, but a 10 percent threshold is arbitrary. Why not 5% or 15%? The issue of how to define a "minor candidate" has already lasted for several days. It should be clear that if we to make such a decision, it is necessary for that decision to be defensible. Arbitrary rationales are weak to begin with, but this one will be accused of being drawn to create a result: keeping down the third parties. As for Aranae's analysis. First, what has been done in previous election pages is not a standard for defining major or minor. Second, yes, this page will eventually have a historical perspective, but it is about an ongoing election now. Deciding that some players will, in the end, be the big vote-getters, and others not, is outside the scope of an infobox for an ongoing election. Readers can get make an informed opinion of who's winning based on their knowledge, the article text, the opinion polling page, and other related pages; they don't need the infobox for that. -Rrius (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor party v. minor candidate labels

We keep throwing around "major" and "minor". It is clear that there are two major parties and other minor parties. This status is based on historical trends and confirmed by contemporary polling. I would have thought it unnecessary to explain this, but that only shows my ability to underestimate Wikipedians.

The Republican and Democrats have won every election since 1852 (yes, 1864 was weird, but Lincoln was a Republican). Only in 1860 and 1912 were other parties truly significant. In the latter, the third party was really just a vehicle for Republican Teddy Roosevelt to challenge the Republican nominee. Republicans have also held upwards of 90% of congressional seats since at least 1860. Only rarely have state governors or legislators been anything other than Republicans or Democrats (with the exception of the nonpartisan Nebraska legislature). It is fatuous to claim that either the Libertarian Party or the Green Party is a major party because it met the single-digit popular vote threshold necessary for automatic ballot access in a few states. In Illinois for example, the Republican and Democratic parties' names are written into the statute, with certain provisions applying to other parties that qualify for automatic ballot access.

We also have this issue of calling people "major" and "minor" candidates. Using those labels before the election is speculative and POV. John McCain's support was in the low-double and single digits for significant portions of 2007. Calling him a minor candidate would have been dead wrong as he won the nomination. There are other ways of describing these people without describing them as insignificant or as non-factors, which is what the "minor candidate" label does. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Excellent point. Thank you for clarifying the distinction. Listing parties other than the Dems and the GOP as major parties (at this point in time) would be at odds with WP:UNDUE, while listing any paritcular candidate as "minor" prior to the election would be in violation of WP:FUTURE and WP:NPOV. Let's hope that the majority of the editors of this page take heed.--JayJasper (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Some of the editors of this article have exhibited bias toward certain parties and are suppressing information on other parties. In particular, there has been ongoing disagreement over the info box. Rational Renegade (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's suppressing any information. We're trying to solve a dispute over what should be in the infobox. Timmeh! 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad, editors couldn't wait until November 4th. That way we'd get concrete numbers & could see which candidate truly belongs in the Infobox (and how he/she belonged). GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very confused why there's disagreement in the first place. The article will be much more informative (and on topic) with all candidates included. I don't normally throw around WP:NPOV, and I wouldn't necessarily use it in this case, but it seems like an encyclopedic entry would naturally have them included. Honestly, we're talking about millions of votes going to "minor" candidates. Uwmad (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The previous United States presidential election articles don't include 'all candidates'. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole precedent argument is tenuous in my opinion. Most importantly, those are elections that are completed. As an ongoing election, all viable candidates should be included in this page. Not to mention that just because it's precedent doesn't make it correct (see Plessy v. Ferguson). :) Uwmad (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I realize I sound like a broken record, but I don't find the way the infobox is used on past elections helpful in figuring out how to use it for this ongoing election article. That said, GoodDay's point holds: the other election articles manage to be encyclopedic without including all notable candidates in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your statement is so vague as to give no actual justification for your POV tag. Based on your edits and contributions, your statement is not entirely correct either. I doubt that you are prepared to show any other editor's bias toward any party or candidate. Rather, I think you will argue that the Libertarians are a major party.
In response to you and in other parts of the discussions on this page, editors have set forth various justifications for calling the Democrats and Republicans major parties, but not the Libertarians. You have provided nothing but your bald assertion that it is a major party, that it has automatic ballot access in "some" states, and that you don't like the justifications given by other editors. There is currently a consensus against labeling the Libertarians a major party. To change this, the onus is on you to show that the consensus should change. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite true. I've often seen the USA described as a 'two-party system' (not three). Furthermore, if the Liberatarian Party were a 'major party'? Then the minor parties would be called Fourth parties (not Third parties). GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Would there be a way to move the infobox down on the page? Or perhaps we could split the pictures of the candidates from the infobox itself - it just seems strange to give so much prominence to candidates that aren't really as important as being at the very top of the article implies. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This has mostly been done already. Obama, McCain, and Barr already have pictures in their nomination sections. Adding Baldwin now and the Green candidate when someone has 419 delegates would get us most of the rest of the way there, leaving us to find a place for Nader's picture. Presumably we could put under "Independents", where we could also add a blurb about his past runs to explain why he is a notable independent. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was vague. You'll have to forgive me but I thought it was clear to everyone what the dispute was. To be specific, it is biased to insist on providing prominent positions in the article for candidates that are perceived by some to be 'major'. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was for everyone to contribute information and help ensure it is accurate. Insisting that information be hidden to avoid 'clutter' seems to not be in the spirit of an encyclopedia. It is also biased to categorize the Libertarian Party as a minor party. There are two ways that I know of the term "major party" being used. One is a matter of perception as to which parties matter. This use is non-factual and depends on the audience. The other, more technical use of the term is in election legislation. In that context, it is used to denote the amount of access that a given party has to the ballot. In this sense, the Libertarian Party is and has been a major party in many states for quite some time. I would argue the point for the Green Party or other parties, but I'm not as knowledgeable about those parties and will allow those who are to present that information. As a final thing to consider, a recent poll shows that 67 percent of voters would consider voting for an independent (third party) candidate for president in 2008. That means that the people coming to this site want information about all candidates and don't need us to make assumptions about which ones they are interested in. Thanks for your time! Rational Renegade (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of editors here, prefer Bob Barr excluded from the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think common sense dictates that either all who have an effect on the outcome of the election be included or that no candidates be placed in the infobox at all. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Then Bob Barr should be excluded from the top Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To say that you think that a majority of editors think that Bob Barr should be excluded does not exactly address the issues that he's raised. Do you have a link to the poll showing that 67 percent of voter would consider an independent? That is a very powerful argument indeed. Uwmad (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We won't know anything (concerning election impact) until after the prez election. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
First, using state election statutes to define "major" when a far more common understanding is available is silly. Second, how many states use the term "major" the way you say they do? Third, you keep saying "many" states give them automatic ballot access; if this is really just a few out of fifty in a national election (as it undoubtedly is), the rationale completely falls apart. As I said, you are pushing a viewpoint that is not widely held. It is on you to provide reliable, verifiable sources saying that the Libertarians are a major party. That is a separate issue from whether all, some, or any of the notable candidates should be included in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to a poll showing "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President" Uwmad (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there's only 1 Poll that counts; the Election Results in November. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If 2/3 of Americans consider voting for an independent candidate in the upcoming presidential election, an article on the upcoming presidential election should be structured appropriately. Uwmad (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr & Ralph Nader

I see the inclusion/exclusion of Bob Barr edit war? is getting out of hand. It will soon be time for requesting article protection. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Include Ralph Nader in the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ralph Nader should be included in the infobox also. Uwmad (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No way, they are never going to win, remove them. we don't include losers like that in any other elections candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PRECEDENT. Minor and third party candidates (that are not expected to get more than at least 5% of the vote) are not on ANY of the recent election pages. We should get rid of them in the infobox, and just keep Obama and McCain. It makes absolutely no sense to clutter up the space with these extra candidates. 68.45.9.206 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President"

As part of the ongoing discussion, here is the link to a poll showing "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President". Uwmad (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not promoting the Democrats or Republican, but considering to vote for... isn't very solid. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not fair to turn this into a game of semantics. "Considering to vote for" means exactly that. And Wikipedia should respond accordingly. Uwmad (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That poll is almost a year old. Timmeh! 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not like it's from the 1800s. We're talking about a very recent poll concerning this election. Unless someone can find a more recent poll, this one should be given credence. Uwmad (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Uwmad, July 2007 is NOT recent. Polls can change dramatically over a week's time. If we are going to use polls, we need to use recent ones. Timmeh! 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So only polls less than a week old are valid? As mentioned, the poll DOES give a good indication that American voters are at least interested in third-party candidates (if not willing to vote for them). This is undeniable. Please let us know if you find a poll that was taken within the past seven days. Uwmad (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Polls are not reliable (thus they're not reliable sources). Let's clear out the Infobox & wait until the November results. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see marketing, government policy, political campaigns, and WP:RS to see why that is a terrible argument. Uwmad (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We have to avoid making the top of this article into a campaign itself. Nothing can be more NPOV, then excluding all candidates until the November results. Don't ya'll see, this who belongs/who doesn't belong dispute? is becoming disruptive (and we're only in June!). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with polls is in the interpretation. If you want to reference the poll in the article, knock yourself out. If you want it to support some argument about putting people in the infobox, that is ridiculous. This is a snapshot poll that tells us nothing about whether there has been any change in third party support since 2004 or, more importantly, how many people will support third parties. What makes the data's usefulness even more questionable is exactly what it says. Of the people who would consider voting independent, one-third would definitely consider it, and two-thirds would probably maybe consider it. That's "definitely maybe" and "probably maybe": what exactly are we supposed to take from this? -Rrius (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it ridiculous to highlight a poll of American voters in order to prove that an encyclopedia should contain information that people would be interested in (up to and including mention alongside the "major" party candidates in an infobox)? Hardly sounds ridiculous. The issues are very clear, as many editors who want third parties included have indicated. Also, please don't mince words, that is disingenuous: the poll breaks it down as "probably would consider" (44%) and "definitely would consider" (22%). Uwmad (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, whether people would consider an independent does not tell us much about the chances that an independent will win or even grab an unusually high number of votes. If this was double the number in the last poll, it would have some weight, but alone it is virtually meaningless on this point. If you read my prior contributions, you'll find that I think we should have none of the candidates in the infobox, but that if we do, we should have all the candidates notable enough to dealt with in the article. So I don't agree with your aim, per se; I just think this argument is terrible. -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean for this poll to be definitive proof that third-party candidates should be in the infobox. RationalRenegade cited it, and I presented it, as another piece of evidence showing that third-party candidates will have an effect on this election. I guess the purpose of highlighting the poll goes as follows: From the poll, a majority of Americans are interested in third-party candidates in the upcoming election. This is an article on the upcoming election. Two of the main third-party candidates are Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, both of which currently have a combined 10% of the vote. [4] Now if you can concede the fact that the infobox is informative and worthwhile (which I do), then there is reason to include Ralph Nader and Bob Barr in the infobox. Uwmad (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote before more debate.

It's become obvious that not all candidates with enough support to have an impact on the election will be mentioned in the infobox, so I move that no candidate be put in until after the election, and we can then decide the criteria for inclusion. We should put it to a new vote now that there's been more extensive debate. Put your solution, then sign below it, or sign below a solution you agree with, then after we see where the frequent editors of this article stand, we can continue with the debate until we reach a venerable solution. Let's allow for a few days before we close this, hmm? -- Fifty7 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember, voting is no substitute for a consensus reached through discussion. I proposed above that we continue to debate this issue, and if we don't reach an agreement within a week, no candidates would be included until after the election. A vote will not solve anything and may cause more problems than it will solve. See WP:POLLS. Again, as I proposed on Tuesday, if we can't solve the issue of who will be in the infobox in one week, we will just remove them altogether until the election. Timmeh! 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like that, I forgot that quickly. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Since when was there agreement to remove the infobox if no agreement is reached? That hardly seems fair seeing as this is one of the items to vote on. Uwmad (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said there was agreement on it. I just said I proposed it. But of course you couldn't be bothered to comment on it. Will anyone else agree that if we can't come up with a solution by next Tuesday, that we should just remove the candidates until the election? Timmeh! 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry -- I read it as a fact. I don't think it's appropriate to just remove the infobox if no consensus is reached, largely based on the fact that the action is actually one of the choices. I would suggest putting it up for WP:RfC. Uwmad (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ralph Nader and Bob Barr

  1. "Two-Thirds Of U.S. Adults Would Consider Voting For An Independent Candidate For President" speaks for itself. Uwmad (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. ben1111au (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. It's quite likely that Nader's and Barr's candidacies will affect the election, at the very least Barr in Georgia. I would almost argue for adding the Green candidate, once it's decided. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee will all affect the election, it is why they were included in the infobox. -- Fifty7 (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Was this intended as a vote? Rational Renegade (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No, no number, no vote. My position remains the same: no candidates in the infobox until after the general election. -- Fifty7 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No Candidates In Infobox Until After General Election

  1. Fifty7 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Seems to be the most fair and sensible solution, per WP:NPOV and WP:FUTURE.--JayJasper (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Rrius (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. I can see this discussion is going absolutely nowhere. We just need to remove the candidates until the election. Timmeh! 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of standard for inclusion in the infobox

Why not ust include those candidates that are going to be on the ballots in all 50 states. If they are likely to have an impact then they are likely to be on the ballot in every state. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that if we do something like that, we should include all candidates that are on enough ballots to garner 270 electoral votes. Rational Renegade (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful things to consider in November. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not hold off on this until the vote is over. If a consensus emerges in favor of not having this stuff in the infobox, this part of the discussion is no longer needed. If it does not, several us will join in about who should be included. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is in serious need of WP:RfC. Any objections to this? Uwmad (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just moved the RfC to the bottom of the page for the convenience of people just coming to the page. I figured since a lot of the conversation is already separated by unrelated sections, it doesn't matter. If you want, I can reference all the sections about this issue in the RfC section. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox

Concern over the inclusion of third-party candidates in the infobox as well as the issue of whether or not the infobox should be included at all before the election have been raised. The discussion has been ongoing (see above) and editors are at an impasse. Outside comment would be appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by editors of the article

To clarify, no one is arguing there should not be an infobox. The argument is that pictures of or information about candidates should not be included in the infobox until after the November election. Overall, I have identified five discrete questions:

  1. Should any candidates be listed in the infobox.
  2. If so, should the infobox only include Obama and McCain?
  3. If so, on what basis?
  4. If third-party candidates are to be included, should all four be included or only some?
  5. If only some, by what measure will we choose which candidates are included in the infobox?

-Rrius (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are great questions that should guide the discussion. Do you want each editor to answer? Uwmad (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I meant them as a guide to what the content questions are and to request explanations for treating people differently if we are to do so. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the current solution (listing all the candidates in two columns with the first row occupied by the Democrat and Republican) unappealing though perhaps the pictures of the third party candidates shouldn't be as large. This would reflect the greater significance of the major party candidates while also providing information about third party candidates (and not trying to hide that information). Theshibboleth (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I alwasy look at how the other United States presidential election articles are done. 1) There's only a few of them that have third party candidates in their respective Infoboxes. 2) Their Infoboxes are used for the Election Results - and thus we should do the same here (wait 'til November) and 3) After the Election, I'd suggest (for all the US prez election articles) we use Electoral Votes as the inclusion critera (receivers of faithless electoral votes excluded). GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
PS- The very fact these disputes have come to an Rfc? sorta prooves my point about waiting until November. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above comments by GoodDay. The criteria he laid out is fair, encyclopedic, and well within the boundaries of WP:NPOV.--JayJasper (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Shrinking pictures still presents the nettlesome question of how we justify who gets a big picture and who gets a small one. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The major candidates get a big picture and the minor ones get a small one. There's no question as to who's major and who's minor. Timmeh! 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is. We have had one editor fighting for recognition of Bob Barr and the Libertarians as on par with Obama and McCain and the Democrats and Republicans. I explained extensively above why I think a distinction can be drawn between the Ds and Rs on one hand and the rest of the parties on the other. I do not, however, think dismissing individual candidates as "minor" is easy to do in an encyclopedic way. "We-know-it-when-we-see-it" is not at all defensible. Current polling is not a great measure to begin with, but how would you justify any given percentage threshold? I think making this distinction in an objective and reasoned way is the main stumbling block, and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of doing so is why we should leave candidates out of the infobox until we have a president-elect. -Rrius (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Only if all candidates that will have an impact on results of the election (meaning not just the two who have a reasonable chance of winning, Obama and McCain, but also Baldwin, Barr, Nader, and the Green nominee). 2) No. 3) N/A; 4) Yes, all four. 5) Criteria for major candidacy would simply be 15% of national support, whereas minor candidacy (not major, but certainly not fringe) would be considered any nominee of a party with 100,000 voter registration (Constitution, Green, Libertarian) AND with considerable ballot access (not necessarily enough to earn 270, but ballot access in swing states, or at least more states than a couple of scattered, non-competitive ones), OR independent candidates with at least 2% support nationally (Nader). If that isn't the case, then I move that no candidate should be placed in the infobox. -- Fifty7 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think Baldwin or the Green Party nominee will have an effect on the election? Timmeh! 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My version of Timmeh's question is, how do we know who, other than the major party candidates, will affect the election? Also, why 15%? Because that is what the Commission on Presidential Debates uses (or at least has used)? They use an arbitrary measure designed to keep people out of the debates due to expense and some sense that the limited airtime should only used for candidates with a legitimate chance of winning. We are not likely to run out of Wikipedia, so the argument doesn't work. Is that what the FEC uses to determine federal matching candidates? If so, it is also a bad measure. The FEC needs to avoid handing out money to every yahoo with a yen to be run for president. Our own measure here is notability, and we have a consensus that there are six notable candidates. There is little cost to adding such people to the infobox.
How do we justify 100,000 in voter registration as any kind of measure? How is such a party more important than one with 99,999 in voter registration? Doesn't the fact that the three parties and the candidate Ralph Nader have all received substantial, if not exactly huge, vote shares in recent elections matter? Or the fact that these candidates have had substantial ballot access in those elections and the one we are about to have?
Why 2% for an independent? Is that based merely on what Nader is polling now? How is 2% better than 1% or 3%?
What I find the most frustrating about this discussion (and this is not directed at Fifty7, but at everyone) is that people seem perfectly willing to set out parameters for determining this or that, but there is little interest in defending them in a way that will at least attempt to satisfy "losing" editors or to explain to neutral editors who may come upon this discussion why the rules put forward are fair and reasoned. I cannot but think that this problem is very nearly insoluble. As such, I question whether it is useful to continue pursuing a solution other than waiting until November to add candidate information to the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, wait until November. With those '2008 post-election' sources? we can then figure out who belongs in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
We will inevitably run into the same problem - if Nader polls 3% and Barr polls 1% should they then be included? I think now's as good of a time as any. In my opinion 1% is a good threshold: it's a lower limit round number that people can identify with and it represents over a million voters. Uwmad (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If by "poll" you are referring to opinion surveys before the election, then no: the plan would be to have no one in the infobox&mdash:not Obama, not McCain, not anyone. If, rather, you are referring to how much the candidates will actually gain in the election, then sure, we will have to pick something, but we will have more information by which to judge whose vote totals had a meaningful effect on the election. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignore the Polls & wait until Election results. In the meantime, leave the Infobox 'empty' & concentrate here (or on your personal sandboxes) on 'inclusion criteria'. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's take out the candidates until after the election when we can use the results to decide who goes in the infobox. Timmeh! 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by outside editors

  • I think it does add something to have pictures of the major contenders in the infobox, so I'd favour doing so. With that said, we need to recognize that any criteria on which we decide who to list are going to be arbitrary. With that in mind, I'd propose something like "the candidate must have polled at least ten percent in any national poll referenced by reliable secondary sources, or must have polled as leading in any state in any state-wide or national poll referenced by reliable secondary sources. Disclaimer one: I'm a Canadian, and I probably wouldn't vote for either of the two leading candidates if I was an American. Disclaimer two: I'm not really an "outside editor" to this article, since I've edited it sporadically in the past, but I'm definitely external to this particular dispute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can you clarify why you think 10% is a good number? That seems steep to me. Even 1% could represent millions of votes. Uwmad (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said, any number you choose is going to be arbitrary. I think first we should agree to using a number and then, once we've done that, we can have some kind of straw poll on what that number should be, with people agreeing to abide by the majority on that. There is no solution to this that is objectively better than any other one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have trouble understanding why any particular number will be better than another.... maybe we should do what we usually do and require a reliable source that says the candidate is a major contender. Theshibboleth (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think clearer guidelines need to be established for this and all future related infoboxes. I think 10% is a fine number, but I'm sure that the criteria will have to be revised on a case-by-case basis. Spartacusprime (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: There are a great many fine numbers. I am partial to four, personally, but ten is pretty nifty, too. What, though, makes ten a good place to draw the line between "major" and "minor" candidates? What is this 10% of?—The last election? Any recent poll? An average of recent polls? A "reliable" poll? In other words, if we made this decision, what would the specifics be and how would we justify ourselves to other editors? -Rrius (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, there's the rub. What polls should be used for this? This election in particular has shown how polls often produce different numbers. Perhaps we should just use the candidates for the four (or five or whatever) largest political parties (which would probably be the Dems, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and whoever else). Spartacusprime (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • How would we set the requirements for a party being in the infobox? Why would we add the Green and Libertarian parties but not the Socialist Workers Party or the Prohibition Party? Timmeh! 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solution

It seems to me that most of the arguments about barr, nadar, and the other being on the top of the page regard to their feasibility of winning the election. As a compromise i offer a suggestion. We should place only canidates that have enough ballot lines to feasibly win the election in the infobox. For some canidates of minor parties victory is not only improbable, it is impossible due to the fact that they dont have enough ballot lines and access to electoral votes to possibly win. Since a party needs a majority of electors to win it seems logical that only those canidates who possess allot access to a majority of electors be shown in the campaign box. At the current time the only parties to my knowlage that have enough ballot lines to win the election are the republican, democrat, and libertarian parties. Ralph Nadar does not have enough ballot lines to win nor does any other independent canidate. I offer that this be the determining factor to whether a candidate is placed in the info box or not. As canidates aquire enough ballot lines to win then they should be added to the box. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome, i believe this may be the solution to the current edit war!!!! XavierGren (talk) 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an agreeable solution. It's not arbitrary, and it's fair. If more candidates get enough ballot lines, then they can be added. Can anyone provide reasons this solution would not work? Timmeh! 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this at one point above. The requirement would be that they be on ballots in enough states to get a majority of electoral votes, i.e., 270. The Libertarians are there, and the others (or at least the other two parties) will get there. The question is, how do we keep track of ballot access?
Also, we should only use this if there is a consensus that this is a sufficient reason for saying that some candidates who receive prominent treatment in the article (i.e., they are notable enough for discussion) are not notable enough for inclusion in the infobox. -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming too, that this 'possible' adoption will not be put into effect, until after the Election. Until that time, remove all candidates. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ballot Access News is a good resource for keeping track of ballot access. Currently it forms most of the basis for the ballot access section in List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is inherently unfair given ballot access restrictions for third-party candidates and lawsuits by members of the two major parties to keep third parties off. Many third party candidates won't not know until the last minute if they're on the ballot. Uwmad (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
All these things can be better sorted out, after the Election. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfair how? If a candidate cannot win, why put him or her in the infobox? -Rrius (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Things would be fair, if all images were removed from the Infobox (until after the Election). GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Although XavierGreen's solution is a good one, we should wait until after the election and use it then to decide which candidate gets included. However, I really don't think we will be able to arrive at a consensus on this matter. We'll still be arguing right up until the election, and all that time, the infobox will be as it is now.
On an unrelated note, this page is way too long and any past discussions should be archived. I would do it, but I don't have the time. Timmeh! 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Many are predecessors of this discussions, so I'd tread lightly. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that anyone who declared candidacy and has an article of their own establishing notability on WP should be included. Not necessarily their pictures, but for sure it should say who primary opponents were. Fred Thompson for example should be included, along with Hillary Clinton, and anyone else who played any kind of role in the election as a candidate. Carter | Talk to me 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. Are you trying to say that Clinton and Thompson should be in the infobox? No one is saying that notable candidates are not going to discussed in the article. The issue is over whose information and photos get into the top box on the right-hand side of the page. -Rrius (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it were possible to remove all the images from the Infobox & just list the names of the presidential & vice presidential candidates. Listing the names in Political Party alpabetical order; have that list until the Election. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a fair and reasonable compromise. Names only, no images until after the election. It has my support.--JayJasper (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidates in Infobox

We seem to have more people for no candidates in the infobox than any particular configuration of candidates in the infobox. The current arrangement, Obama, McCain, Barr, and Nader, has no justification for its inclusion of Barr and Nader, but not Baldwin and the Greens. There is not likely to be one, either. As such, it should not be the status quo as we decide this issue. With the range of options for inclusion, excluding them all is at least the most neutral course until a particular rationale wins out. -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement (surprise, surprise). GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I add my support. Best possible solution for now. --Floridianed (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the only agreeable solution until after the election. Timmeh! 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
This is fine with me. I've kept an eye on the little discussions above, even though I didn't say much myself. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 05:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
100% agreement.--JayJasper (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I still think the infobox looked fine here with McCain, Obama, Barr, and Nader. But alas, I am outnumbered and weary. :( Uwmad (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's disingenuous. There are two presumptive nominees. They should be displayed. POV issues are irrelevant. Obama and McCain are the presumptive nominees, and it's well sourced. There is no specific reason for their exclusion other than arguing over trivial technicalities which only serve to inhibit an encyclopedia article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I support removing the candidates from the info box. We should either list all candidates, major and minor, from all parties (not just the dems and repubs); or no candidates. The latter is the only viable option. -- Macduff (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No we don't have to list the minor parties because they are not likely to win the presidency. I feel that leaving out everyone is being disingenuous only to appease those who want to include everyone or no one, which isn't how an encyclopedia should be. ScienceApe (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Leaving out everyone is perfect; until November 4, 2008. After the Election, we'll have solid numbers on electoral votes & popular votes. Then, we can set up an inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have more people for no candidates in the infobox - if by that you mean that you've run multiple votes until you got the result you liked. Of course, we could pay attention to the first vote (where the most people voted), where Include images of candidates from two major parties now got the vote and the prospect of putting at least two candidates in was by far the most popular, but that might not come out with the results we like. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls are not the same as consensus. We put up the two pages, then a minor edit war ensued. No one was able to justify leaving just the two major-party candidates to the satisfaction of other editors. We were also unable to establish a consensus around any test which candidates to include and which to exclude. In the end, a consensus developed around not including pictures. That was based not just on the votes but also on the responses to the comments from outside editors, the "Possible Solution" subsection, and the "Obama's picture" subsection. Even if we pretend that the polls are the sole measure of consensus, events changed after the initial poll, so it is unfair to say that we ran multiple votes until the vote changed. For one thing, I only see one subsequent poll. For another, the later poll was only held after a great deal of discussion had intervened—including a Request for Comment. -Rrius (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at extensively the page and talk history, and people challenged the issue all the time, and your response was always "consensus says otherwise"; so of course, it was not consensus at all. And, even if it was (which it wasn't), it clearly isn't anymore: consensus can change. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Not the case. I said that there was a consensus that the Libertarians are not a major party and that there are six notable parties/candidates for the article as a whole. With respect to the discussion of candidates in the infobox, I routinely spoke of consensus in the future tense. I did not say there was a consensus, so people should shut up. I said that their proposals needed to obtain a consensus and that arbitrary rules were not going to get it. So please do not mischaracterize what I said. If you look back far enough, you'll see that I initially supported pictures in the infobox, but changed my mind. I have consistently tried to work with people who do want them by asking for better explanations of their positions; explanations that would persuade other people to adopt the suggestions. No one has been able to justify any given percentage in opinion polls. After I had publicly stated that I preferred no candidates in the infobox, I suggested using ballot access in states equaling 270 electoral votes as a measure; that was shot down. You try to create the impression that I dishonestly attempted to thwart any meaningful discussion that would lead to candidates being in the infobox. I believe that is completely wrong and that any fair reading of my contributions to the discussion would bear that out. -Rrius (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This statement, "In the end, a consensus developed around not including pictures", was based on the following: no new arguments have been put forth since my comment starting this section, the discussion slowed dramatically, and a number of new editors commented supporting the no-candidate position. Perhaps I was wrong, but I had ample reason to believe it. Moreover, I did not say it to shut you down, and I don't see how it could be construed that way. Further, it was, as far as I recall, the only time asserted it as the consensus. Interestingly, the only time I came close to asserting there was a consensus was when I reverted the removal of the four minor-party candidates on 9 June saying, "There seems to be a consensus against you. Why don't you take this to the talk page" (emphasis added). -Rrius (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
What's important is that all images have been removed, thus removing any squabbles over inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't resolve the issue though. That just sweeps it under the rug. ScienceApe (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You should bring your perspective to the mediation page to which this discussion has moved. -Rrius (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Can we remove the box at the top of the page stating that there's a NPOV issue? While the dispute is ongoing, and I favour an option (pictures of the two main candidates only) other than the current one, the article as it stands does not have a neutrality issue, there is no inherent bias one way or other in what is presented to the ordinary reader in having no pictures. I think it is more informative to include pictures, but not biased not to. With a page as frequently viewed as often as I imagine this is, we should avoid questioning its veracity if we can. William Quill (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Remove it. It is a nonsense to label the whole article as an NPOV issue. Setwisohi (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain & Obama's status at topinfobox

Folks, we've got McCain & Obama listed as their respective party's presidential nominees. They haven't been nominated yet; could somebody put in the infobox, that they're presumptive nominees? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The ref. link at the side of each candidate's name identified them as presumptive, but I agree that it's better to mark it cleary, as readers don't always check the footnotes.--JayJasper (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ballot Lines

With all of the complaints about the pictures, the simplest way to fix it all is to include pictures of every candidate in the info box that are on enough ballots to actually win the election (270 electors). That includes the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties. If any other third party was able to acquire enough electoral votes, I'm sure it'd be all over the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.81.221.42 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2008

You're too late and this belongs at the bottom of the talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This proposal was raised during the mediation. It didn't seem too popular. It's still not too late to chime in on the mediation page, although there already seems to be general consensus around the current proposal, which requires 12% in at least one major nationwide poll in addition to the electoral vote requirement. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the rest of the Candidates in the Infobox discussion. Should this thread be added to that archive? If so, when? -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I just searched the archive and there's no mention of a 12% requirement. And if there is, that doesn't make any sense. National polls did not exist when the country was first founded and didn't even come into play until 1936. Even then, they weren't scientific. On top of that, what is even the rationale for the number 12? Was that just randomly chosen in order to keep certain people out of the info box? And then what about polling error? 3 or 4 percentage points is a world of difference. Nothing is official or as objective as the simple fact of whether or not someone has the ability to win 270 electoral votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.81.221.42 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 July 2008

Here's the proposal of a 12% requirement. FWIW, I agree with your reasoning and supported such a idea in the discussion. Although reluctantly willing to support the mediator's proposal as peaceful resolution to a long impasse, I'd much rather see your idea implemented. The discussion is apparently still open, so who knows......--JayJasper (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that if you were to come in and propose something, I think you might actually see a high amount of agreement. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support your proposal over the status quo. The current measure makes no sense and seems to have acquired consensus based more on exhaustion than logic. -Rrius (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least have a table listing all the states where the specific candidates' names will be on the ballot? (Obama and McCain have 50 + DC, Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, et al have several, Nader has one at least, and I don't know if Keyes has one.) Orville Eastland (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We do: see List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

topinfo box: Just Obama vs. McCain?

Because this is a particularly historic election, and one with significant discord between the parties of their nominees, I would think it wise to possibly at least Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party (who has been polling as high as 7% nationwide, definitely significant enough to merit a spot on the top) or other third-party candidates. After all, the United States IS a democracy and as such the public ought to be informed of all of its choices in an equal and unbiased manner, as Wikipedia claims to strive. Thoughts? - Final Philosopher (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It was already decided at a Mediation Cabal (concerning this article), which criteria to use for inclusion at the Infobox. For now, the criteria calls for Obama & McCain only. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, actually, no, I just looked at the archives, and it seemed like there was no consensus reached. It seems like blatant crystal balling and not a neutral point of view to me to not include them. Since the poll was a split between the editors, anyway, it should at *least* call for a recount.Final Philosopher (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefered having no candidates in the Infobox until after the prez election. But, I was clearly in the minority. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I see a citation of the actual poll in which this was voted? As I recall, it was a standoff and was completely arbitrarily decided to be in favor of the upstanding two-party dictatorship.Final Philosopher (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to get someone else to find it; I'm not good at obtaining citations. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why are you claiming that it was already decided which criteria to use for inclusion in the Infobox, if you can't even show a source to back it up? I'm sorry, I thought this was Wikipedia, where an extraordinary claim had to be substantiated by actual evidence of such a debate ever taking place. I must have been sorely mistaken.Final Philosopher (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't provide a citation, 'cause I don't know how to. I suggest getting help from Rrius, for what you seek. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The criteria decided on were 12% support from a major poll as well as access to at least 270 electoral votes. User:XavierGreenXavierGreen (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that John Anderson is not included in the 1980 info box, but Ross Perot is included in the 1992 info box. Both of those candidates were pretty well known at the time. Are the standards consistent from election to election, and is that considered relevant in this case? Macduff (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with including Anderson at 1980. I'm afraid the prez election articles aren't all consistant. However, he did get only 6%. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-29 United States presidential election, 2008, for what transpired. PS- This discussion should be at the bottom of this talk-page (where new discussion always begin). GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I'm kinda new here, as you can probably tell. Thanks for clearing all that up.Final Philosopher (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There was something approaching a consensus reached around having candidates on enough ballots to reach 270 and having reached 12% in the polls. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-29 United States presidential election, 2008#Mediation proposal. I see it as nothing more than an arbitrary rationalization for having only Obama and McCain. If it was a consensus in the mediation case, it was soft, but there are so many approaches that it is unlikely you will convince enough people to develop consensus around another one. If you want to try, go ahead.

Well, Barr's got ballot access in what, 31 states now? Surely that's enough, and he's been polling pretty high otherwise. I see no reason for barring him (no pun intended)from inclusion in the infobox. And, uh...how exactly would I go about trying to reach a consensus around a different measure of inclusion? The Wikipedia layout is sorta daunting...Final Philosopher (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the infobox, why is Obama first? For all other elections, the winner is shown first. Both these guys are still presumptive nominees. Something unexpected could happen and one of them might not wind up with the nomination. I say leave them out until the votes are counted. You should be recording facts, not predictions. Averyisland (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

These are the reasons why I wanted no one in the Infobox, until after the prez election. Who belongs? who goes where? questions that would be answered in November. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support having McCain first, actually, since he's first alphabetically and he's the incumbent party. I don't exactly know the criteria for placing candidates first in here, but crystal-balling is not one of them, and this is coming from someone who doesn't even like McCain. Either put him first, list alternative candidates, or just omit it until November. Also, I still would like to hear the process that I would go about doing to try to gain a different consensus on inclusion in that box, as far as Wikipedia protocols go.Final Philosopher (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There are no criteria. The issue didn't exist in 2004, and other countries' on-going election pages have not been entirely consistent. New Zealand general election, 2008 shows pictures for all parliamentary parties; Next United Kingdom general election has pictures for the three major parties. I still maintain that after the election the infobox will be a guide to who had a significant impact on the outcome, but that if we are going to put pictures in before the election, the infobox should be a guide to who may have an major affect on the outcome. As far as the process for developing a new consensus is concerned, this is it. You've started a discussion, and if it leads to a new consensus, we'll change the article. -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've suspected, the concerns of who's included in the Infobox & who goes in the left-top corner? continue to be brought up. Wait until November folks before adding any candidates. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I second this motion.Final Philosopher (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that a country with 300 000 000 inhabitants seems to have only 2 candidates for president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.129.56 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I "third" GoodDay's suggestion that there be NO candidates in infobox until post-election. Too crystal-ballish otherwise. There are scenarios under which Obama, McCain or both could fail to be their party's respective nominees and it also assumes that only those 2 parties matter which is NOT NPOV. GBrady (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's undue weight to include any but the two major candidates, both of whom are virtually assured of their respective party's nominations. JPotter (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. It's NPOV to just include those because it implies that only the two major candidates have a chance of winning, which although likely is beyond us at Wikipedia to decide.Final Philosopher (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? The odds of one of the two winning are over 99.9%. That's not me as a wikipedia editor coming up with that number, that's a sourced figure. Seems like undue weight to me to include a candidate with less that a .01% chance of winning. JPotter (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I infer Final Philosopher above intended to say it's POV (not NPOV) to include two candidates. I agree, it's POV to imply that only two candidates are running. Even though no one believes that anyone other than the two major-party candidates will win, it still puts Wikipedia in the position of promoting the two major-party candidates to the exclusion of any alternatives. I also endorse GoodDay's suggestion of no candidates in the infobox; there's just no other NPOV way to handle it. - PhilipR (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It could be argued that ONLY the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, etc. parties candidates ought to be including, seeing as they have already been chosen by their respective parties as nominees. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have been officially declared to be any party's nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.211.217 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_6&oldid=1142749500"