Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-11/Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

Where is the dispute?
In the Speculated 2012 candidates section.

Who is involved?

 * Jerzeykydd
 * David1982m
 * JayJasper
 * William S. Saturn
 * Reywas92
 * TimothyHorrigan
 * America69
 * Reywas92
 * Hysteria18
 * Gage
 * FallenMorgan

What is the dispute?
There has been an ongoing debate that over the past several months about the criteria of the section, and whether or not certain candidates should be in the section.

What would you like to change about this?
There is currently a fundamental disagreement. I'm hoping that we can agree on a new criteria.

How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure what the mediation can and can't do.

Mediator notes
Hello, This is my first attempt at mediating a dispute, and I'll readily admit that I'm currently embroiled in another dispute myself that's the subject of a MEDCAB request. That being said, I see that there seem to be a lot of users (11) involved in this dispute. Does the dispute boil down to basically two sides, or are there more sides than that? Reason I ask is to better understand what is going on. Thank you. Ngchen (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to still be in debate. Shouldn't this article be about who is being talked about running and not who we believe is actually running. I recently re-added Sanford and Jindal because they are still being talked about and based upon the current criteria they are still being talked about running. They should still be up for the next 6 months. I just bring this up because my edits seem to have offended JerseyKydd, based upon his comments below.

Why are you being a pain in the ass? Everyone knows Sanford and Jindal won't run. Why don't you just keep it the way it was and keep your mouth shut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments don't sound like Good Faith Edits to me.

I don't see why Jindal and Sanford should be removed yet based upon the criteria currently in place. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My recommendation would be to ignore him until he's willing to discuss the issue in a civil manner. If he continues to make personal attacks, you might want to file a Wikiquette alert. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing Sanford, but I see no reason to remove Jindal, as it's at least plausible. Gage (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be civil here. Sanford, especially now that his wife's divorcing him, should undoubtedly be removed. I was opposed to the six month criteria or whatever it is. We should use common sense: Sanford is not running. Jindal is unlikely, but he has been vague and remains a possibility. Reywas92 Talk 21:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that there are several articles that say Sanford is NOT running in 2012. I don't believe we should create our own criteria. But if there are news organizations that clearly state that someone is definitly not running than that person should not be in the list.....By the way, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm just pissed because there is a clear distinction between the speculation of Sanford and the other 16 candidates on the list. The speculated articles of Sanford/Jindal clearly have a different tone than the others. I'm not saying we should create our own criteria. But I do think that a source has to clearly state that a candidate may run in 2012, and that there must be an objective consensus.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a reputable source that says Jindal and Sanford are not running, they should remain in the article, in the interest of fairness. FallenMorgan (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness about a person who lied, cheated, misused state funds, and is now being divorced, they should be removed from the article unless current sources say they are running. Under that logic I suppose every Republican could be included. Reywas92 Talk 01:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many sources for Sanford that say he will possibly run. His personal life should not have any bearing on that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point them out, though of course anyone could possibly run. The ones we currently link to indicate that he was Once thought to be a contender. Personal life sure as heck has plenty to do with any election. Common sense, please? Even if he starts, he will lose. This reliable source says "Sanford's 2012 candidacy is almost certainly over. Having an extramarital affair is bad, but not being truthful to the people of the state and disappearing for five days is unforgivable on the national stage -- or any stage for that matter. Let the search for a new champion for fiscal conservatives begin!" Though I think every one of them should be removed since no one has a damn ounce of proof other than speculation. Wait until people form exploratory committees. Reywas92 Talk 02:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation is notable. And this is not a scoreboard, perhaps he was once considered a potential candidate in reliable sources, so if that is the case it should be noted. To automatically say he will not run because of his personal life and exclude him from the list based on that fact, is original research. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Saturn, you are right that we can't just exclude someone from the list simply because of their personal life, and yes that is original research. However, the past two sources that are speculated did not say he may run in 2012. The only thing CBS News said was that he was "once thought of as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, he instead became the only South Carolina governor to face an impeachment since Reconstruction." The Los Angeles Times said "Once a GOP contender for 2012, Sanford refused to comment this morning." Both of these two articles simply mentioned how he was once a potential candidate. But neither article said he may run in 2012. So tell me I'm wrong.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not completely aware of what sources are currently stating about Sanford, I'm simply making a general statement about the candidates listed on the page. I know that at one time Sanford was considered a leading potential candidate, and that is pertinent information. I am saying that he nor any other potential candidate should be removed from the page based on their personal affairs, if at one time they were considered a potential candidate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason for wanting to keep Sanford and Jindal are because they are still being talked about as being or having been potential candidates. Haley Barbour was recently taken because he is not being talked about at all anymore in conjunction 2012, Sanford however, is still being talked about as a has-been 2012.  What does that mean?  Nixon was talked about like that for a long time after his failed presidential run 1960 and failed run for Governor, then he ran and won in 1968.  Why are these sources still referring to him "Once a 2012 Contender".  Ensign was removed for similar reason however he is not being talked about anywhere as having once been called a 2012 contender.  Ensign had his scandal, speculation ceased, and people stopped talking about him in conjunction 2012.  Sanford same thing, except, he is still being talked about in conjunction 2012.  Also, since we really don't know who really will be running, all we can do is name the people that the media is talking about in conjunction to 2012.  After 6 months, it's fair to say that if they aren't being talked about anymore, they must not be running.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying someone was once a potential 2012 candidate doesn't mean anything. People could be saying for years to come that Sanford was once a potential candidate. It means nothing. I was pretty sure that the qualifications for a reliable source was that the source must say that someone could run in 2012. This is absolutely ridiculous.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But why do they keep saying he once a 2012 contender? I can't find any of the other candidates that we have previously dropped being talked about in the same way.  Michele Bachmann, John Ensign, Jon Huntsman, Haley Barbour, none of them are being talk about in conjunction to 2012 at all, letting alone being called "Once a 2012 Contender".  Sanford is the only one obtaining the title "Once a 2012 contender".  What does that mean and why is he still being talked about in conjunction 2012?  I was under the impression that anyone with 2 or more reputable sources less than 6 months old that talks about them and 2012 no matter what the context, it was ok to add them and keep them until they fall outside of that criteria.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jindal shouldn't be lumped with Sanford. Jindal would be a plausible candidate if he did run.  Sanford would not be.  Even though Sanford wasn't impeached, his recent record as Governor of South Carolina is extremely weak. Going through a divorce doesn't disqualify him, but he let his personal life interfere with his professional life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sanford falls into a category of potential candidates who might still want to run again— but who have for one reason or another knocked themselves out of contention. I would also add Rick Santorum, George Allen, Rudolph Giuliani and perhaps even Mike Huckabee to the same list as Sanford.  Sarah Palin kinda belongs on that list, too, but she is never going away and she is always going to have a big fan club.  If Sanford proves to be insane enough to actually mount a Presidential campaign, then of course he should have a row in the table on this wikipedia article; but, he seems to be keeping his head down and dealing with his divorce proceedings and his current job of Governor of South Carolina. His big political problem, by the way, isn't the divorce per se: it was the circumstances surrounding his affair. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello all, I just wanted to throw my two cents into this debate. I have gone through and read the debate above and the article itself, and here is what I take about whether or not Jindal and Sanford should remain. First Gov. Sanford: with Sanford being caught up in a scandel, and his wife divorcing him, I see it very unlikely he is going to run for President. Plus, there has not been a source listed that he is thinking of running, all I have read is that he was once a former potential candidate. The LA Times says, "The article noted that Sanford was once a GOP contender for 2012"(that can be found in the article with Sanford). That is not at all an indictaion he is a potential candidate, but a former one. Then there is Jindal. I am more willing to see the arguement that Jindal should remain. While no recent sources having mentioned him as a potential candidate, barring no scandal, there is still enough there to believe he is still a potential one. To sum up, Sanford should go. He isn't a viable candidate, and unless someone finds a source claiming he is still pondering a bid, he doesn't belong. Jindal, is a bit more tricky. I say wait and see. I hope this helps, and I will be checking back to see if there are any other ways I can help, or if there are comments directed toward me. Lets remember to keep the debate civil!! Thanks, America69 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the common sense argument, but for us to assume someone isn't running is Original Work. There is no definitive source that says Sanford absolutely will not run.  We also can't keep candidates on that basis because no one has definitively stated they will run.  For these reasons this article needs to only contain candidates that are being discussed in at least 2 sources in conjunction 2012 (whether the author believes they will run or not), and is less than six months old.  This brings about the best idea of who in effect may be running.  If they are being talked about, it's fair to say there is a possibility of them running and they should remain, until they are no longer being talked about after 6 months.  This is why Haley Barbour and others have been removed because discussion about them and 2012 have ceased.  No one has said they will not run, but no one is speculating they will run, so it's not likely they will be running or have any interest in running.  This is the most sensible and reasonable criteria that doesn't rely on Original Work, except maybe the 6 month criteria part, but it's minimal.  This section should strictly be about candidates being talked about in regard to 2012, not candidates that will likely be running, because it is too early to know who is actually running.  Sanford is being talked about in conjunction to 2012 and therefore should stay.  Be clear of the criteria, the person must have at least 2 reliable sources less than 6 months old, and be about the candidate and their relationship to the 2012 election in that that they may or may not run in it.  This article as a whole should be about the names that are being thrown around in reference to the 2012 election and NOT who in effect will be running, because they is Original Work and Crystal Ball content until anyone says they are running or not running for that matter--Diamond Dave (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diamond Dave that, under the present criteria reached by a consensus of editors, Jindal and Sanford should remain listed for the time being (though I too sympathize with the common sense argument, particularly regarding Sanford). If anyone wants to re-open the criteria discussion in hopes of reaching a consensus to revise the standards for inclusion of potential candidates, feel free to do so. But until the criteria is changed or modified by a new consensus, Jindal and Sanford should remain.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe what's troubling is how we are labeling and defining this section of the article. We are calling it POTENTIAL and POSSIBLE candidates by calling these candidates that is Original Work and Crystal Ball in and of itself.  That implies that the candidates could possibly be running, which we really can't say until people come forward and say so.  I think we should find a way to rename this section to explain that these are simply names the media is talking about in conjunction to the 2012 election, some of these candidates may or may not be running, but they are being talked about in conjunction to 2012 in at least 2 sources that are no more than 6 months old.  Any objections or variations of that definitions?  Also, any ideas of a new and better name for this section that will more clearly go with the above mentioned definition?  --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a rough edit based upon the same idea, your feedback please? --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, Dave, but IMO, "Names of interest" is a bit too vague. Actually, I see no problem with "possible", "potential" or perhaps "speculative" candidates - these are not crystal ball or original reasearch terms, per se - as long as it is clearly acknowledged (and properly referenced) that the speculation is from noted and reliable media sources, and not from the editors of the page. If we were to use terms like "probable" or "likely", that would be crystal-balling or using original research, because we would in effect be predicting that these individuals are going to run. But "possible" or "potential" are general enough terms (especially when attributed to - and backed by - reliable sources), in my view at least, as to not violate WP policies. I suspect the conflict is not so much about the terminology as much as it is disagreement about who should be listed and who should not. That being said, if I am proven wrong about this, and a change of labeling and defining does bring about resolution, then I'm all for it.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument seems to stem from what is a Possible or Potential candidate. That's why i figure if we rename it with a phrase takes out the questions of who is likely to run, since it's too early to say that, it would eliminate the disagreement over who should be included to reasonable standards that make sense.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why potential candidates are completely removed from this page after 6 months. Were they not "at one time" considered potential candidates? This is not a scoreboard or wikinews, just because they haven't been mentioned in the last 6 months doesn't mean they should be completely blanked from the page. Perhaps after 6 months without coverage, a potential candidate should be moved into a new section titled "Formerly speculated candidates" or similar. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the list would really get huge and give the reader outdated junk that likely won't matter. By the time it's closer to 2011/2012, there will have been a lot more speculation and a lot more people on the list. And of course, once the election season gets into full swing, it will not matter at all who the lowly pundits once thought should/could run, only the politicians who actually at least formed an exploratory committee. (Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008) Reywas92 Talk 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is simply viewing the whole matter through a crystal ball. What makes "outdated junk" irrelevant unless this is wikinews? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why the 6 month criteria needs to be in place and it kind of makes sense. If no one is talking about them in conjunction to 2012 in reputable sources after 6 months, it's safe to say speculation for them has ceased.  But, we should also be prepared to re-add people.  Gingrich, Paul, Jindal, Pence,and Cantor had all been removed, but have returned because they now have 2 or more sources less than 6 months old.  This way also indirectly shows the candidates potential standing.  If someone has only two sources and one is new and the other is 4 months old, it kinda says the likelihood of them running is slim, however, people who don't seem to go away and have sources only a few dates in between each other, this indicates there must be a strong likelihood they will run or a lot interest in them running.  In that same way I would think the more media attention someone is getting the more likely they will run and the less media attention the less likely they will run.  --Diamond Dave (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)