Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 9

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.

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presumptive nominee - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presumptive nominee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States presidential election debates, 2016 - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election debates, 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious if the latest edits to the US Presidential Elections, principally by Ericl, are actual adopted policy by the Project membership; in simple terms it amounts to the removal of the candidate and balloting sections, to be replaced instead with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates nominated (though Ericl's latest edit in 1856 neglect this), with the balloting for those offices being relegated to the Convention articles. The recent edits to the 1860 most exemplify this apparent "new direction". --Ariostos (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a policy or consensus that supports such changes. It seems to be a case of Ericl being bold. I haven't yet seen enough of the edits in question to comment on them. I'll take a look when I have time. Do you find the changes problematic?--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do in the sense that presently those candidates that were not nominated are being removed, replaced with simply the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees, the balloting often also disappearing, and the sections of some "parties" or bolter factions being renamed from what they were or named themselves (The Constitutional Democratic in 1860 to Southern Democratic for example, though I understand they are better recognized under that moniker). I can some degree understand why he would be doing what he is doing, as it might draw some more attention to the National Convention pages, but such pages don't exist for minority parties nor would there be enough information to justify them except in rare cases, and it also flies in the face of what has been the case of the most recent Presidential Election articles. Ultimately, it has the appearance of cutting out information rather than adding or clarifying it. --Ariostos (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion, taking place on the talk page of the main 2016 US presidential election article, regarding what should constiture an "endorsement" for a presidential candidate. As this concerns standards applied in us presidential election-related articles, members and supporters of this project are encouraged to participate in the discussion found here: Talk:United States presidential election#Endorsements--NextUSprez (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position before giving a chronological discussion of how it may have evolved or changed over the years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The map File:ElectoralCollege1824.svg has incorrect data:

• DE shows 2 for Jackson and 1 for Crawford (it should be 1-2)
• ME shows 8 for Adams and 1 for Jackson (it should be 9-0)

The correct underlying data are shown at United States presidential election, 1824. YBG (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Limberbutt McCubbins - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limberbutt McCubbins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you folks know that Samuel J. Randall is nominated for featured article. I'd be happy to receive input from anyone who is interested. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles A. Long - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles A. Long until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I found to source which are useful to improve the candidates policies: Economic policy and foreign policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This article was recently created. Aside from the ungrammatical title, I'm not sure what should be done with it. I shall leave it to people here to decide. Cheers, Number 57 06:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This topic is clearly covered in the main page, United States presidential election#Electoral college results, and more specifically, List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin Spartan7W § 14:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Project members please participate in this discussion about the organization of United States presidential election, 2016. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deez Nuts (candidate) - which falls within the scope of this project - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deez Nuts (candidate) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently, notable candidates listed at USPE, 2016 are divided into the main list and an "other" list. Polling in five or more major polls is the current standard for differentiating. I propose we change the main list inclusion standard to "Party-recognized." This would list those candidates the parties officially recognize as running for their respective nominations in the main list. All the other notable candidates would still be listed under "other." I believe this is a less arbitrary (and therefore fairer) categorization scheme than the current polling-based standard.

The Democratic Party has issued press releases recognizing the five candidates currently in the section titled "Candidates featured in major polls." Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb. The party has not issued a press release for any of the other Democratic candidates, including Lawrence Lessig (who has complained about the party's lack of recognition).

The Republican Party recognizes 18 candidates in its Official Straw Poll. The difference between that list and the list currently in use on USPE, 2016 is the Official Straw Poll's inclusion of Mark Everson. With my proposed categorization, Everson would be moved from "Other" to "Party-recognized." No other changes would need to be made.

Thoughts?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with changing the categorization scheme. First of all, this was proposed just around the time that Lessig was about to qualify by being included in his fifth national poll. So it reads as an anti-Lessig and pro-Everson move. Wikipedia should not change its qualifications for who counts as a major candidate or an "other" candidate in the middle of the election season, especially not to favor or disfavor particular candidates. Second, the five-poll standard is something that can be applied to both parties. By contrast, the Democrats don't have a straw poll on their web site nor do the Republicans issue press releases welcoming each major candidate to the race, so the standard being applied is different between the two parties. Furthermore, the standard of being included in five polls both allows and requires there to be multiple "gatekeepers" to the status of becoming a major candidate. No single organization (whether it be the party's national committee or a polling organization) can stop a candidate from qualifying as a major candidate, nor can any single organization (whether it be the party's national committee or a polling organization) enable a client to be a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If that is true about parties not being able to stop a candidate from qualifying as a major candidate, why then is Lessig not invited to the debate next week? The single organization you are talking about above is the same single organization that will nominate the candidate at the national convention. Conversely, the current scheme can be read as anti-Everson and pro-Lessig. Lessig will be listed regardless, this proposed scheme allows readers to see which candidates the nominating parties recognize and which candidates they do not recognize.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

At one time, I had thought these were two different events, but the articles at present both seem to be about the same event. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States presidential election, 2020 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NextUSprez (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently, I believe there is a guideline for general election articles, that candidates be included in the infobox if they receive 5% of the vote. However, there is not a stated rule for primary elections. While that guideline does, in theory, make sense as a measure of success for a third party candidacy (though one could argue Nader deserves inclusion in the 2000 election infobox) - it does not really work as well in a primary election. For example, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000 includes Alan Keyes in the infobox. He is included despite the fact he did not even come in second place in any of the actual contested primaries, and the article itself acknowledges that the race was between Bush & McCain, naming Keyes as one of the "other candidates." Also, he barely crossed the 5% margin simply because he did not drop out until Bush accepted the nomination, and ended up being the only other candidate besides Bush running for more than half of the state primaries. If a third candidate must be included, Steve Forbes was much more notable and actually had moderate success.

If you look at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008, John Edwards is not included even though he came second in Iowa and was a consistent front-runner for the nomination early on. Excluding Edwards while including Keyes, even though its different parties and different years, does not make sense. Since all candidates are running for the nomination of the same electorate from the same party, I suggest different guidelines for the primary elections instead of the general election. Given how one can easily pass 5% by just not dropping out even after the race is essentially decided, I propose that in primary elections, in order to be included in the infobox, a candidate must: 1) Win at least one state, and 2) Receive a minimum of 15% nationwide

Thoughts? MavsFan28 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Where does the 15% number come from? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no existing rule. Its a suggested proposal. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So it's something you just made up? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

100%; the idea of discussion is that counter-points can be made too. MavsFan28 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me offer some choices here

#. I think this is a great idea, but the number should be less that 15%

#. I think this is a great idea, but the number should be greater than 15%

#. I think this is a great idea, and 15% is the exact right number.

#. I think this is a great idea, but the standard should be based on something different.

#. I think it is better to decide on an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis rather than having a rigid standard.

Or maybe there are some other options???? YBG (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be 5% so that it is consistent with what is used for the general election. Keep in mind, the number is based on popular vote total as it is with any election. Why should some elections be presented differently than other elections? It is not wikipedia's place to decide that Alan Keyes' 5% should be written off because that it doesn't really reflect his performance. Wikipedia need not make such judgment. Wikipedia needs to present information consistently and accurately. Regardless of how he did it, Alan Keyes won over 5% of the popular vote in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries and so he should be listed in the infobox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't make judgement on Keyes' candidacy, as I haven't added anything of the sort to his own article. But you still have to consider the facts: Of the 24 primaries in which Bush, McCain and/or Forbes campaigned in, Keyes only crossed 5% in seven of them. If you look at the remaining primaries after Bush became the presumptive nominee, Keyes made up the difference to just barely cross that 5%. Even if we were to use the five percent threshold for primary campaigns as well, shouldn't it be required that the 5% be reached while there's actually a primary campaign still going? The article clearly says he was not a factor in the primary, and the infobox should reflect that.

The issue of who belongs in the infobox in primary elections is different than the general election. It is a fact that third party candidates look to cross the 5% line since some states recognize "five percenters" as a major party. There's no threshold or "goal" that primary campaigners look to reach; basically the difference between 4.99% and 5.01% wouldn't make a difference to a primary campaign (sans for some moral accomplishment) as it would for a third party candidate.

As for the specific requirement, whether its 15 or five percent - it will be impossible to corroborate that with an official source. There's not an accepted percentage scholars use to cite a primary campaign as a success. Another good measure to go by would be maybe winning at least one state's primary qualifies for inclusion in the infobox. An ad-hoc, case-by-case basis with majority consensus could also work too. But the 5% standard does not apply here and is greatly flawed. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only flawed if you want to make judgments about candidacies through the infobox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Its also flawed as general elections and primary elections are not the same in format, and thus should not be restricted or freed for that matter by the exact same requirements. There still is not an established practice or policy for primary elections. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're over-complicating a matter that doesn't need to be complicated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, just trying to establish guidelines for future reference. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

5% is already used across the board. Other than what looks like a disdain for Alan Keyes' 2000 campaign, you have not provided any reason to change that standard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Used maybe, but on the actual discussion where 5% was established, it specifically says that the 5% applies to third party candidacies (as do all the sources). In my initial comment, I made note it didn't make sense to include Keyes in 2000 and not include John Edwards in 08. Keyes is only still being discussed because you responded to the part about him. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should it make any difference whether John Edwards is excluded from the 2008 infobox and Alan Keyes is included in the 2000 infobox? 5% was established long before the discussion you reference. That discussion is only when it was discussed. Regardless of what was discussed in that discussion, 5% is used in every election article. If you want to change that you need to establish consensus, otherwise it remains as it is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the point of this discussion is to try and establish some kind of consensus. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Without any consensus, the only option would be a case-by-case basis. I support establishing a concrete guideline to follow as well, but there currently is not one. This 5% is not a policy or written anywhere as an established consensus outside of third party candidacies in general elections. Thus, we can't make up our own rules and should be allowed to look at any and every article and find the best way to present it to the public. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, reading through this I ultimately have to fall into the camp that wants to establish 5% as the baseline for inclusion, with the addition of a little leeway of course. Now I do agree that it isn't perfect, John Edward's campaign in '08 being a strong example given his showings while actively campaigning, but only having attained (2.66%) of the vote overall. However, given the infobox is meant to deal with the race as a whole, we can't grant consideration based on the results in any number of states, sans the case where a candidate who attained less than 5% of the total primary vote managed to win a state or caucus, in which case they should be included in the infobox. --Ariostos (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the main election article concering the photos used for the major republican candidates. If you'd like to participate, here's the link to the discussion: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Which photo of candidates for article?.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)