Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 4

Should all speculation be removed?

I am removing the lists of names of people who have been "floated" as possible candidates, and inserting them on Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Lists of potential candidates. They should not be in the article without verifiable, and authoritative, sources included in the listing. Preferably, some objective facts should be given as the basis for inclusion, such as the formation of an "exploratory committee". Wikipedia is not a political-insider gossip sheet. --BM 01:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I have not contributed much to this article, and have no personal attachment to it other than that I check in on it regularly. I definitely agree that the lists had gotten a bit ridiculous; I think just about every elected official from Georgia has been added recently. That said, I don't agree with the recent actions taken by a couple of people to reduce this entire article by over 75%. In a single night, months of collaboration by many contributors has been deleted. Polls of possible 2008 candidates are listed at the bottom of this page, yet not a single politician in those polls can still be found anywhere on the page. Even a trip to Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Lists of potential candidates will only get you the words "see active candidate section above", but that section doesn't exist there either. Why are people coming to this page? I think it's to see the technical aspects of the election, the major potential players, and the status of those players and of the less known people who are doing something to get a candidacy started. I would suggest that the format of the page be established with a section on highly vocal candidates or those who have started fundraising (active candidates is probably too strong of a term at this time for anyone). A second section should exist for the status of potential candidates who are spoken of frequently by major media outlets, pundits, and in polls. Finally there should be a link to a page containing a much larger and more speculative list of potential candidates. It could take quite a bit of effort to get that together, and I have to admit to too much ignorance on the topic to do a decent job, certainly not solo. Sorry, but I usually write about rats. My point is that I don't think a lot of highlighting with a mouse and hitting "delete" is the way to make this a quality article. --Aranae 05:26, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I removed all the names being "floated" and from the candidates section, all names of people where there was nothing but a "it is rumored", or something lame, like "visited New Hampshire in 2004", or "his book tour passes through some early primary states." That is not enough basis to list someone as a candidate. If someone wants to mention a name, there should be a good factual basis. The "floated" section was particulary bad, since there was no factual basis even mentioned, and basically people were being invited to add names based on their own say-so, which is original research. We should not have two sections: one where we have some standard for inclusion, and require the factual basis to be included along with the name, and a second "floated" section where people can let it rip with any name they hear (or imagine they hear) a rumor about. The "let-it-rip" section should just not be there at all: it is totally in violation of every policy that Wikipedia has about verifiability, citation of sources, and original research. Personally, I think it is far too early to mention specific names in an encyclopedia. At this stage, politicians are simply exploring, testing the willingness of fund-raisers to contribute, trying to encourage media speculation in order to test their potential and position themselves, reconfiguring their staffs to include people who might be helpful if they decide to run, and that sort of thing. Most of the names we are listing at present will fade.

I realize that some of the names that I have removed, such as Hillary Clinton or Bill Frist, are the most frequently in the media as potential candidates in the media. If someone wants to add them back, then it should be made clear that they have actually taken almost no concrete steps towards becoming candidates, and that they are being put on the list entirely because of "buzz", with some verifiable evidence of this buzz. There should be quotes/links to media sources. As for the polls, being included in a poll doesn't mean that you are a candidate, these polls also reflect "buzz", and at this stage just indicate who are popular national politicians.

This is an encyclopedia. It is not a news source for breaking news, and it certainly isn't a venue for speculation about events that have not even broken yet, or a gossip line for news junkies. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to report "buzz". --BM 11:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, our policies do not prohibit the inclusion of speculation, provided that it is verifiable, not original research, and presented in a neutral point of view. There is much to be said about this election which fits all three criteria, though the absurdly long and completely unsourced list clearly did not.

But you've also removed a good deal of material which definitely does belong here in some form. This includes potential candidates who are widely discussed by mainstream commentators in mass media outlets: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Jeb Bush. Discussion of these figures should be restored, along with citations to relevant press accounts.

Moreover, you've removed some material which isn't the least bit speculative, such as "a number of activities are commonly seen as indicative of active exploration of a presidential campaign. These include [...] meetings with prominent national party fundraisers and speaking engagements in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire" -- exactly the kind of statement you can find in any political science textbook about American elections.

RadicalSubversiv E 12:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this list, of course, is that it is totally POV. If I think that Hillary Clinton is not a candidate (because I believe her when she says she isn't), what am I supposed to do? I could add information to the listing supporting my POV, but the other POV (which is actually weaker at this point) has basically "won", because it is a list of candidates, and Hillary is on it. A politician is either in the list, or not, and you can't both be and not listed at the same time. So, actually, this bullet list should just be replaced with a text paragraph that refers to people who have been mentioned in the media as candidates, with reasons why they might be, or might not be, candidates. --BM 13:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Radical Subversive. I believe that candidates who either have annouced their candidacy or are widely speculated about in the national media should be included here, fully sourced and documented. True, the list had gotten absurdly long, BM, but Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani... they all have been floated as candidates for months. The folks that have done more to get their names out as candidates — Biden, Feingold, et al. — have done so because their political stars don't shine as bright, and it's necessary for them to get a head start on funding and exposure so they have a chance against those potential candidates who are widely speculated about.

Having said that, every local paper wants to imagine that their two-bit congressman is going to run for President. I would agree with BM that we shouldn't include all of their names. But Wikipedia shouldn't just go along with Clinton when she says 'I am not a candidate.' Sure, she's not a candidate — at this time. That's why she was listed under the possible candidates heading.

I support bringing back the candidates widely speculated about in the national media, with sources describing why they are listed. --BaronLarf 14:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

BM, before you get edit (or should I say delete) happy and start ripping up all of the stuff on the page, perhaps you should take a look at this page and the archives thereof where considerable debate had lead to a consensus to determine what the format was before your recent edits. Though I am sympathetic to your arguments and I think serious changes need to be made, I do not think that the solution is to come in and remove 75% of a highly active article without taking a few minutes to come to the talk page and try to get some consensus first. Though I do not criticize your intent, I fear that the sort of action you've taken can lead to edit wars which, I hope, we all want to avoid.

Also, FYI, I re-added Gingrich. Again, before getting delete-happy, you ought to check the sources. The source next to Gingrich said (and now, again, says) "Newt Gingrich open to presidential run". You don't need to search through the article to find that, it is the headline.

- Jord 13:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The simple act of listing people is not POV, and how one is formatted is totally irrelevant. It would be inaccurate to add people who have not announced an intent to run to a list of announced candidates. But there's nothing biased about a list of figures who are regularly mentioned as possible candidates. We can also list people who have taken steps which are generally seen as part of the presidential campaign process -- trips to IA/NH, forming new leadership PACs, making donations to IA/NH candidates, recruiting possible staff/consultants (which, incidentally, Hillary has done), etc.

This is important because it's not just speculation -- the presidential campaign process begins with invisible primaries far before the "official campaign" ever gets underway. That process, which is studied by political scientists, weeds out many people who very much want to run but don't find enough support early on. RadicalSubversiv E 14:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you noticed, this article is on VfD. The editors who have been working on this page agreeing with each other on how it should evolve are not all the editors of Wikipedia. This article is now getting more widespread scrutiny. Concerning removing 75%, most of what I removed was long lists of "floated" candidates, which nobody so far is actually defending, plus a few specific people on the other list because they were placed on the list without adequate sourcing or detail to make their inclusion more than speculation. Meeting with the NH delegates at the 2004 convention, or speaking at a political dinner, is not sufficient grounds to list someone as a 2008 Presidential candidate. As for the sentence you quote from the newspaper source concerning Gingrich, it was not in the article. --BM 14:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those activities emphatically are sufficiently notable to be listed here. They are steps which everyone knows will be widely reported and seen as early preparations for a presidential run. That doesn't necessarily mean these people will ultimately decide to run, but it does mean that they've toying with the idea seriously enough to have that known pubicly. To say that a politician doesn't understand the presidential significance of speaking at a party fundraising dinner in Iowa isn't an opinion -- it's a basic falsehood. RadicalSubversiv E 14:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That may be, but what is the encyclopedic value of a list of politicians "toying" with the idea of running in an election that will be held in just under 4 years from now, and won't even start warming up for another 18 months to 2 years? You might as well just list all 50 governors, and all 100 senators, for a start. I'm toying with the idea of running myself (you heard it right here first). Want to list me? It is a bit on the nonsensical side. At this stage, it is really more a parlor game for political activists, and in my opinion, Wikipedia loses a bit of credibility by indulging in it. --BM 14:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there is substantial encyclopedic value to having a list of politicians who are/were presidential prospects, especially those who went through the feeling-out process of speaking in NH/Iowa, setting up PACs, etc. Why did they decide to bow out? What traits did they not possess that others who did put up a serious fight for the nomination had? A list of people who are have declared and/or are considered contenders by the national media is encyclopedic. Moreso even than a list of Pokeman characters or articles on Star Trek episodes. --BaronLarf 16:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I might agree with you, but that would require more than just a lazy bullet-list of anybody that has ever given a speech to a rubber-chicken fund-raising dinner in NH/Iowa, or has been quoted by an AP reporter as "open" to the possibility. --BM 17:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If somebody goes to GOOGLE and searches for "U S Presidential Election 2008" they would get this page. [1]. Information about candidates who might consider running in 2008 is very relevant, even if they are not actively pursing it. A person visiting this page should know the candidates about whom there is a great deal of buzz in the media. If the buzz originated from a well respected source like CNN, FOX, NY Time, Wash Post etc, then it belongs in this page. --170.35.208.20 21:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shall we add again John Edwards because of his organization One America Committee? If s/o check his organization he will agree with his run in 2008. He has much activities than Bayh!--Sina 23:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a note regarding recent comical comments on recent reverts. 1.) There are no rules of engagement, this issue hasn't been finalized. It looks like one proponent for rigorous requirements for a name to be listed (BM), several people in favor of a less rigorous list but more than what used to be here, and maybe one (170.35.208.20?) in favor of the old long list. 2.) Adding a long list of floated candidates isn't vandalism any more than deleting a huge list of floated candidates. It's just two different individuals trying to make a better page. One more note, I still think a separate genuine page linked to from this page where the more speculative candidates can be housed would be useful. --Aranae 03:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to my revert of the anonymous user putting back the old list; perhaps I shouldn't have called it "vandalism," but the anonymous user put back the old list without engaging in discussion here on the Talk page. The page as it currently stands is, in my opinion, a work in progress. Bit by bit I believe candidates should be re-added to the list, but this time with solid justification. --BaronLarf 04:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that we take the opportunity to abandon the bullet list? I hate "List articles" and they aren't any better when they are within articles. As I said above, when you have some list of items for which there is Criterion "X", unless "X" is so clear-cut and objective that there can't be any disagreement, any item added to the list represents the POV that that item meets criterion "X". Not being on the list represents the POV that the item does not meet the criterion (or perhaps it means nobody has thought to add it.) There is no way that such a list can be NPOV. One of the POV's must win: something cannot be both on the list and not on it at the same time. For example, I don't believe that all these people are "candidates". In fact, at this stage, probably none of them is. They are prominent politicians who realize that they have sufficient visibility and standing with media, party activists, and fund raisers that it is not ridiculous for them to explore the possibility of running. They have not made up their minds, most of them, and it will be while before they do. It will be even longer before they let everybody else know in any definitive way. This is why Kerry says "it is way too early to be talking about 2008". We should listen to him; he's a smart man who knows what he is talking about. My POV is represented by the lists being essentially empty, except for maybe the Libertarian candidate who is pretty sure to run. It isn't good enough to have a vote of Wikipedia editors about each entry. NPOV demands that all reasonable points of view be represented, and you can't do that with a list. --BM 04:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion this page (or a page linked from this page) MUST contain the following information.

• Names of candidates generating lots of buzz. This would include people like Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice. There should be links to articles to back up the buzz.
• Candidates with "draft candidate" movements. This list would include Condi Rice [2], Dean [3] and Mike Easley (NC). This also should be backed up with links to articles and websites.

First of all we need to decide whether this information belongs in Wikipedia. Once we decide this belongs in Wikipedia we need to decide whether this information belongs in the main page or in a different page. I am in favor of having all the information in the main page. --Boshtang 19:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll on standards for inclusion

Question 1

Does the information about candidates creating media buzz (eg Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice) belong in Wikipedia?

• Yes --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If by "creating media buzz" you mean speculation in established national press outlets, yes. RadicalSubversiv E 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, and See Radical Subversiv's comment. --Aranae 02:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• No. "media buzz" is not an verifiable criterion. What constitutes "media buzz"? --BM 11:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. --Sina 12:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Someone with no real idea about the possible candidates for 2008 (as far as we know right now, in 2005), should be able to come here and get updated on the names that are talked about most right now. saturnight 13:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, but only national media buzz. (This would include Clinton, Giuliani and Rice). Specific articles should be referenced, however, not just "buzz."--BaronLarf 15:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, but limit it to the ones generating the most 'buzz'... like maximum 8 people. Wouter Lievens 15:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, but this buzz should be sourced. - SimonP 18:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Question 2

If the information about candidates creating media buzz is to be included in Wikipedia should it be added in the main page for U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 or should it be included in a different page?

• Main Page --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Main article. RadicalSubversiv E 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Main page - for large media buzz. --Aranae 02:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Main Page. --Sina 12:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Main Page for the most well-known potential candidates. What else could be put there right now, other than very basic information about delegates and the electoral college? saturnight 13:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Main Page, but in a seperate category from those who have made actual moves towards running (setting up PACs, stumping nationally (especially Iowa and NH), etc)--BaronLarf 15:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Question 3

Does the information about candidates with "draft candidate" movements (eg. Condi Rice [4], Dean [5]) belong in Wikipedia?

• Yes --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This is trickier. If there is a real "movement" of some magnitude, as there was with Wes Clark, yes. However, an obscure website does not a movement make. RadicalSubversiv E 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. --Aranae 02:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• No. At this stage, most of the "draft" movements are some guy at home in his basement with a computer and a website. Occasionally, there is a significant one, such as with Wes Clark (which started off as two guys at home in their basements with a website). But most of them are of no consequence at all. It is only after the fact (as with Wes Clark), that you can tell which ones might be significant. In the case of Wes Clark, it became significant because he was thinking of running anyway, and he fed it. In general, Draft X movements are pretty much all either kooks or astroturf by the candidates. --BM 11:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, but in the separate section.--Sina 12:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, but they shouldn't be mentioned too much. One sentence à la "Already, there exist several movements trying to gather support for drafting such candidates as Condolleeza Rice or Howard Dean (see (condi link), (dean link) for more information)" should be enough. saturnight 13:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• No. Draft candidate movements should not be a criterion for inclusion in this list. Any one or two people who wanted to draft a candidate could put up a website. (Examples:[6],[7],[8],[9], [10], etc) National media buzz should be enough.--BaronLarf 15:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Question 4

If the information about candidates with "draft candidate" movements is to be included in Wikipedia should it be added in the main page for U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 or should it be included in a different page?

• May be different page --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If the list of "draft movements" becomes too long for the main article, it's a sign that our standards for inclusion are too low. RadicalSubversiv E 01:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Only when there's some combination of draft and media buzz. The lesser ones should be included too, but on a separate page with less rigorous criteria. That page would be linked to from the main article. Also there's nothing wrong with paragraph based discussion, such as why major outlets feel neither Cheney nor Dean are running. --Aranae 02:22, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• No separate article. Not a list in the main article. If there is a significant draft momvement, mention it in a text paragraph.
• Yes, main article but separate section.--Sina 12:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As I said, main page but not necessarily in a special section with a bullet list. One or two sentences are enough. saturnight 13:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• If the consenus unfortunately leans towards including draft candidates, they should be on a different page so as not to overrun the entire page.--BaronLarf 15:02, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I added a John Kerry 2008 website link. I hope nobody minds.

Hemi-centric seasonal comment

What's with the "Late Summer/Early Fall" in the Later events section?

1. Summer of which hemisphere?
2. What is this season you call "Fall"?

Please respond here or on my talk page. Better yet, fix the article. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 23:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Summer of which hemisphere?" <snotty>Hmm. This is an article labelled "U.S. presidential election, 2008". One might read this, note that the United States is in the northern hemisphere, and (I know, I know, it's a stretch) figure that it's the summer of the northern hemisphere. </snotty>

"What is this season you call 'Fall'?" This being an article about U.S. presidential elections, the American English term, "Fall", is used instead of "autumn" (as you know quite well, since you refer to it as a season).

The article is now fixed. — DLJessup 23:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou. Having seasons mixed with months is bad style. Alphax ^τεχ 09:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

True enough. I have replaced the seasons with months. (Incidentally, for anyone who wants to point out that in the 2004 election, the Republicans had their convention in September, the Republicans had to get special waivers from several states to do that, and it was done (along with holding the convention in New York) to tie in with the 3rd anniversary of 9/11.) — DLJessup 17:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines for active / potential candidate lists

Based on the results of the earlier poll, here are the guidelines for sections containing active / potential candidates. Propose amendments if you feel differently. --Boshtang 23:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not how Wikipedia works. Polls are used to attempt to gauge sentiments and build consensus, not to set absolute rules. You are free to propose these as standards for inclusion, but you may not unilaterally decree them to be the rules. RadicalSubversiv E 23:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are not hard and fast rules. I believe some kind of consensus is better than people deleting whole sections as we have seen in the previous weeks. In this spirit I have changed the title from rules to guidelines. --Boshtang 23:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with these guidelines. First, the poll above has whatever significance it has. Assuming that it has any significance, it is not up to one person now to interpret the poll and state what the "consensus" was in the form of "guidelines", especially given that it is very unclear how User:Boshtang got from the poll questions to these guidelines. If he wanted to claim that there is consensus for these guidelines, he should have made the poll be about the guidelines in the first place. For example, there is nothing in the poll concerning separate lists of "potential" candidates. I object strongly to lists of vague "potential" candidates, and if any attempt is made to recreate that list, I plan to open an RFC on the subject, appeal to the Arbitration Committee, to Jimbo, or any other Wikipedia process that will keep that kind of speculation out of the Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia policies, such as Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not take precedence over whatever Boshtang says the consensus is amongst visitors over the last few days to this Talk page. As Radicalsubversiv points out, this isn't how Wikipedia works. --BM 14:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I think that deleting nonsensiscal "list" sections that consist of inherently point-of-view, unsubstantiated, unsourced, opinions as to who are "potential candidates" is better than having such lists. Also, as I stated above, the list format is inherently not NPOV, since each entry reflects someone's POV that someone is a candidate, potential candidate, etc, and implicitly suppresses the equally valid POV that someone is not a candidate, potential candidate, etc. --BM 14:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of your proposed guidelines. I think most people would have no major disagreements with them either, and so I propose that everyone who wants to add a new potential/active/drafted candidate first voluntarily reads the following section and checks if his candidate satisfies the conditions mentioned. Nobody can force people to adhere to these guidelines, and they should never be absolute rules that everyone must obey. But, they should, at least, provide a basis for deciding if a certain candidate should be in here or not. saturnight 10:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Section: Candidates who may be pursuing an active 2008 candidacy.

For a candidate to be included in this section one or more of the following conditions must be met.

1. Candidate confirms that he/she is a candidate in 2008
2. Candidate forms an exploratory committee
3. Candidate hires people (pollsters, campaign managers) who would be helpful in pursuing presidential candidacy. Links to mainstream media should be provided.
4. Candidate courts voters in early primary states. Mere visit would not be sufficient.

1 & 2 would automatically qualify the candidate to be included in this list. If a candidate satisfies only the criteria 3 or 4 then they should be discussed in the talk page before being included in the list.

Section: Potential candidates

Candidates who are included in the "actively pursing" should not be included in this list. For a candidate to be included in this list one or more of the following conditions should be met.

1. There is a significant media buzz by national media surrounding the candidate. Links to the buzz must be provided.
2. Satisfies criteria 3 or 4 in "actively pursing" section, but does not qualify as an actively pursing candidate.
3. Before being included in the list the candidacy should be discussed for a reasonable amount of time in the Talk page

Section: Draft movements

There would be a sentence or two detailing the various draft movements underway. There could be links to couple of prominent draft movements. There will not be a list of draft movements in this section. There could be a link to another Wikipedia article titled "Draft Movements, U.S. presidential election, 2008" which would list the various draft movement websites.