This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
In agreement. PS- Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay ( talk)
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)
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)
Tenchi2 ( talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussion is above.
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.
hold on a minute, I already made it its on the pageAndrew L. Lessig III 22:39, 6 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)
What are your criteria for minor/major party? The Libertarian Party IS a major party. Rational Renegade ( talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Harr o 5 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. Tim meh ! 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)
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)
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 was Clinton's image added to the Infobox? GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Tim meh ! 16:28, 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)
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)
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)
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. Tim meh ! 02:43, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Inclusion of Ralph Nader and Bob Barr
No Candidates In Infobox Until After General Election
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)
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)
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:
- Rrius ( talk) 01:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
The criteria decided on were 12% support from a major poll as well as access to at least 270 electoral votes. User:XavierGreen XavierGreen ( talk) 23:15, 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.
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
In agreement. PS- Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay ( talk)
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)
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)
Tenchi2 ( talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussion is above.
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.
hold on a minute, I already made it its on the pageAndrew L. Lessig III 22:39, 6 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)
What are your criteria for minor/major party? The Libertarian Party IS a major party. Rational Renegade ( talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Harr o 5 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. Tim meh ! 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)
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)
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 was Clinton's image added to the Infobox? GoodDay ( talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Tim meh ! 16:28, 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)
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)
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)
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. Tim meh ! 02:43, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Inclusion of Ralph Nader and Bob Barr
No Candidates In Infobox Until After General Election
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)
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)
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:
- Rrius ( talk) 01:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
The criteria decided on were 12% support from a major poll as well as access to at least 270 electoral votes. User:XavierGreen XavierGreen ( talk) 23:15, 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.
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |