Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 6

Nomination of Tiffany Briscoe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tiffany Briscoe - 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 Articles for deletion/Tiffany Briscoe 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) 19:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

George W. Romney FAC
This is notice that the George W. Romney article is now a Featured Article Candidate. Comments welcome at Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Wolfe, Jr. for deletion
(Redirected) A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Wolfe, Jr. - 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 Articles for deletion/John Wolfe, Jr. 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) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#"Possible Vice presidential picks" section RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Lee Abramson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lee Abramson - 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 Articles for deletion/Lee Abramson 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) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Andre Barnett for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andre Barnett - 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 Articles for deletion/Andre Barnett 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) 21:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam details an opportunity for experienced Wikipedia editors to have free access to HighBeam Research, an invaluable resource for locating reliable sources for articles and content related to US presidential elections as well as other subjects.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are needed for political endorsements lists
The lack of consensus on which political endorsements are appropriate for inclusion in WP is leading to a lot of confusion among editors. Take a look, for instance, at the discussions on the Talk page for Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012

Can we get a discussion going on what constitutes a political endorsement for WP purposes and on which endorsements are noteworthy enough to be included in WP?

As a starting point, the following should be addressed:

First, there is the issue of what constitutes a political endorsement.

There are some statements that nearly everyone, if not everyone, would accept as clear endorsements. An example would be when the editorial board of a newspaper publishes an article shortly before an election stating that of the candidates seeking office, the board prefers Candidate X and urges readers to vote for Candidate X; or when a retiring elected official holds a press conference together with his chosen successor and urges voters to cast their votes for that person.

There are many other situations in which it is not so clear that a formal endorsement is being made. These are the sorts of cases that can be problematic for WP editors. Current guidelines do not adequately address these situations.


 * Is casually saying "I agree with a lot of what Candidate X says" an endorsement for office?


 * Is it an endorsement if the person only makes the statement in question with reluctance (for example, during an interview that is not primarily about the interviewed subject's opinion of the candidates and in which the interviewer must ask repeatedly to extricate that specific information)?


 * Is saying "I support Candidate X" while simultaneously saying "I support Candidate Y" and "I support Candidate Z" — all of whom are competing for the same seat — an endorsement suitable for inclusion among the endorsements listed in a WP article about a campaign? Or should exclusivity be a requirement for inclusion?


 * Is making a monetary contribution to a candidate's campaign an act that should qualify as an endorsement for office that is appropriate for listing in WP? (see, for example, http://www.floridalatinconnection.org/2012/02/donny-osmond-helps-out-mitt-romney/, which is cited at Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012)

Second, there is the issue of whether a person who has some formal connection to the campaign (eg, someone who is described as a "senior adviser" to the campaign) should be listed among individuals making an endorsement for a candidate — or whether the connection is exclusionary due to the conflict of interest. (see, for example, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/24/ron-paul-campaign-welcomes-constitutional-law-heavyweight-bruce-fein-as-senior-advisor/, which is cited at Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012) And what are the boundaries, if any, for deciding to exclude an endorser on the basis of being connected to the campaign? Would major financial contributors be acceptable for inclusion, or should they be excluded? Or will it vary case by case?

Third, what are the guidelines for deciding whether a particular endorsement is noteworthy enough (or whether the endorser is notable enough) for inclusion? For example, in the United States, the endorsement that a local schoolboard member or city council member makes for a candidate seeking to be the nation's president would not seem to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in a WP article, even though local newspapers might report on the endorsement. (and yet see, for example, "Frederick County Board of Education Student Membar Neha Kapoor," "Kent County Commissioner William Pickrum," "Bardstown City Council Member Bill Sheckles (D-Nelson)," and "Hamtramck City Councilmember Catrina Stackpoole" all listed at List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements_from_state,_local_and_territory_officials)

Fourth, what should the convention be for handling endorsements made by individuals or groups with whom the candidate or party does not wish to be associated?

Fifth, it may be helpful to spell out what specific rules apply to choosing citations for endorsements, given that they often are made nowadays on blogs, social media sites (eg Facebook), or personal websites. WP:SELFPUB requires that the material involved does not involve claims about a third party, yet political endorsements almost always involve claims about third parties (usually the preferred candidate, and often the rival candidates). For a couple of examples see the citations for Barbara Ehrenreich's and Garrison Keillor's endorsements at List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. And is it sufficient for the WP citation to be to the name of an endorser that is included in a list on a candidate's campaign website?

(Note that I am also posting this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_PoliticsDezastru (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate photo galleries
Are these really necessary when we already have a textual list of candidates in each section? It seems redundant to me. Why do we need to see every single candidate's face? Tim meh  01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 - 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 Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 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) 20:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing Pictures in Election Articles
I'm changing the pictures because I want it to look fresh. I'm tired of seeing the same old pictures. Can I please do this without violating anything?

-Creativemind15


 * Yes. You can save the pages to your computer and add whatever photos you'd like.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Important discussion
See, where an editor attempts to remove information about third parties based on his incorrect views of Independent Political Report. See this and this as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The historic Daisy video
The historic Daisy ad helped Lyndon Johnson win a landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964 and is an important turning point in political and advertising history. The entire full length video is up for Featured Picture! Click here to check it out. – Lionel (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Faithless Electors and Third Party Guidelines

 * Thinking about our current rules for inclusion in the Infobox regarding candidates, after an election, there was the mention in the criteria of a Third Party Candidate getting electoral votes. To avoid rambling, should national tickets, such as Hosper's in '72, which receive electoral votes from faithless electors be included in the infobox? If not I think we should reform that criteria, from winning electoral votes, to winning a state or a congressional district which has been granted an electoral vote. --Ariostos (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus, as I understand it, is that candidates receiving electoral votes - excluding such votes awarded by faithless electors - are to included tin the article's post-election infobox. By this criteria, Hospers would not be included in the '72 election infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. That is why I worded the note for the 2012 talk page to say that they must win at least 1 pledged electoral vote. That is to say, a vote from an elector(s) that was pledged to that candidate due to the November election. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would Harry Byrd in 1960 count in this regard? The Unpledged Electors in Mississippi and Alabama were elected, and not faithless electors given they were free to cast for any candidate. --Ariostos (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand, Byrd did not run for president in 1960. He was not on any ballots, and did not receive any popular votes. Like Hospers in '72, Reagan in '76, and Edwards in '04, Byrd's electoral college showing is merely a footnote. However, if an individual does not run like Byrd, but is still placed on the ballot and wins a state, as may happen (though extremely unlikely) with Reform Party of Kansas presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin, does the individual qualify for a spot on the infobox?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with William's assessment of Byrd - the same principle that applies to faithless electors applies here (even the electors were not technically "faithless" in this case). As for the hypothetical scenario of a one-state candidate like Baldwin, I think that any candidate that actually wins a state should be included in the infobox, even if the state they win is the only state on which they appeared on the ballot.--JayJasper (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the honored editors that the consensus is that candidates receiving more than 5 % of the popular vote or wins any electoral votes - excluding such votes awarded by faithless electors - are to included tin the article's post-election infobox. This consensus does have its flaws though. In the 2000 election Nader had a pivotal role but since he didnt meet thre criteria he is not included in the infobox. Similar cases be buried in older elections from the past centuries. On the other hand opening up for exceptions to a rock-solid and very clear consensus might open up the floodgates to any editors with a personal agenda or on a historical (revisionist) crusade. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial issue, and while it may be hard to draw the line in some cases - Nader 2000 being a good example, since his percentage was low but his impact enormous - clearly Hospers 1972 is on the other side of the line and does not belong in the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe candidates with less than the 5% cutoff of popular vote who didn't win any electoral votes should be prominently featured in the infobox. But completely eliminating the recipients of "faithless" votes somewhat compromises the integrity of the "Electoral votes" line in the IB, since the displayed votes don't sum to the total. I would support a compromise like the one another editor proposed (which I opposed in the specific situation) for Debs in the 1920 election – add the candidate's name, party and statistics without a picture on a separate line below all the other candidates. A footnote explaining the circumstances would be a helpful addition. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is whether we want an article covering the presidential election to just go up to Election Day, which most think of as being in November (and is listed as being so in the infobox), or to also reflect events that may occur in December, when the electors cast their ballots, or in January, when the House would meet to elect the President in the event no one gets 270 votes. If we want to cover all three possibilities, then we need to make room for the full results from the Electoral College, including faithless electors, or electors who are unpledged from the get-go (as happened in 1960). If we can agree that information belongs in the infobox, the question turns to where exactly and how. If we want to just cover what happens in November, then we can disregard later events and just stick to the post-Election projections. My suggestions below assume that the infobox covers the election through January.

I agree with JayJasper that any candidate who wins a state (and by extension, a CD in a state like ME or NE) should be pictured. That does not deviate from the current standard, as such candidates would have won (or at least be entitled to) 1 or more pledged electoral votes. Winning something on Election Day is a notable achievement, no matter how many or few states it took place in. So if Baldwin wins KS he would presumably have their 6 electors and be listed. In the even more unlikely event that those electors turned faithless and voted for someone else, he should still be pictured, with his EV total written to reflect both his Election Day & actual total- something like 0(6).

Again, all electoral votes should be accounted for in the infobox. That is not to say that all those who get them need to be pictured. People who receive electoral votes either from faithless electors, unpledged electors (as was the case for Byrd), or a combination thereof I think need to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Of course, anyone getting 5% or more of the popular vote would be pictured. By default, I agree with Fat&Happy that anyone who gets less than 5% of the popular vote but gets 1 or more faithless/unpledged EV's should be listed in a separate line, either below the main candidates (and above the map) or in the captioning of the map. However, I would argue for one exception (and thus the 'case-by-case basis'). If a person gets a consequential number of EVs, they should be pictured, rather than just be a footnote. I would define 'consequential' as either garnering 270 EVs & winning the presidency, or accruing enough of those faithless/unpledged votes to lead to a "hung" Electoral College. For example, if the 1960 vote had been: Kennedy 268 (269 needed), Nixon 219, Byrd 50, then I think he should be pictured. If Byrd had gotten 269 votes, whether they were from faithless votes or not, he'd have been elected President, and surely we'd want the President-elect to be pictured. Abstentions (as happened in 2000) should also be noted somewhere in the infobox, just so all 538 votes are accounted for. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Faithless electors are an anomaly. They dont really count. In fact, if faithless electors turned an election, I dont think anyone would know what to do. Thus, I concur with Jay et al that those winning faithless electors be excluded. Nader is alleged to play a pivotal role, but he wasnt really relevant or influential in all honesty. Gore lost a number of states he shouldve won.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anomaly they may be, but they certainly count. Electors elect presidents, not the general citizenry. Now, if 270 electors conspired together to ignore the election and vote together for someone other than the projected winner on Election Day, there is no doubt that that would cause an uproar and possibly lead to a constitutional amendment abolishing the system. However, that wouldn't change the fact that the person they chose would become the President-elect (rather than the President-designate from the November election) for that term. Given the system that exists, I think it's important to establish a consensus that deals with all possible outcomes. And I don't think JayJasper voiced his opinion on how to note faithless electors (if at all), he just confirmed the current post-election infobox criteria and agreed that anyone who wins a state (and therefore has at least 1 pledged electoral vote) should be in the infobox. Speaking of Nader, my understanding is that multiple lengthy but unofficial recounts took place after the Supreme Court weighed in and showed that Gore would have won the state anyway if all the ballots had been reexamined, so Nader & the Greens have nothing to answer for, even if it is reasonable to claim that all his voters would have voted for Gore. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I support the current post-election infobox criteria.-JayJasper (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Inclusively or exclusively? Meaning, do you support the current criteria as being the only criteria, or would you support also somehow adding to that a consideration of faithless electors (not necessarily for candidates pictured, but somewhere in the infobox)? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comments below (beginning with "Hence, the basis.....")--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole approach being followed here is wrong. What really matters is if there is anything reliable and noteworthy about the details being mentioned. If there are reliable sources talking about faithless electors or for that matter any sort of election result, that is what the criteria should be for inclusion in tables and in articles. I seriously doubt that the Jedi Knight Party (a group that actually filed with the Federal Election Commission as a formal candidate for the U.S. Presidency, and they have nominated a Brian J. Moran of Texas as the nominee for their party) is going to get much press coverage. See also this list if you want to see a complete list of all Presidential candidates.

Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates are very likely going to get at least some press coverage from bona fide news sources. No doubt if faithless electors or even more so any sort of 3rd party electors turn out to make the difference in an election, such as what could have been the case in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore, the press coverage over those particular electors is going to be enormous and will likely by itself by the subject of several Wikipedia articles, including perhaps an article or two of the electors themselves. Otherwise, without those reliable sources there will be almost nothing to verify or will be mostly original research. Far too much of that seems to be happening with political articles on Wikipedia anyway, so insistence upon those 3rd party sources should be a major criteria for inclusion. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course any information that we put in the infobox would have to be properly sourced. If there are faithless electors after an election, I think it can be assumed that they will receive at least some press coverage. The question is an anticipatory and hypothetical one- once we are presented with the case of faithless electors (and their existence is confirmed by reliable sources), how do we showcase them and/or the people they voted for in the infobox? It doesn't hurt to be prepared and have a consensus in place. It's not as if there have never been faithless electors. I don't think the Jedi Knight Party has gotten on the ballot anywhere, therefore they are not listed in the 2012 election page. No matter who they are, if they or anyone else get votes from faithless electors (assuming they remain off any ballots & don't win any votes come November), that ought to be acknowledged in some way, particularly since there are a fixed number of electors, and by voting for the Jedi Knight Party, they are not contributing to someone else's total. In terms of noteworthiness, if an individual vote is important as tallied within Obama's 69,456,897 votes in the 2008 infobox, then why not the vote of someone who even more directly affects the election of the President, particularly if, as I suggest, it has a consequential effect on the top 2 or 3 finishers? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't think there is anything that we really need to anticipate. If there is something of note that is widely reported in reliable sources, templates can be adjusted and tweaked if they don't currently fit with the information that needs to be presented.  Besides, there should be plenty of historical examples that do have reliable sources as well (such as the votes Theodore Roosevelt got for the Bull Moose Party or other significant 3rd party candidates).  If anything, the standard format carried out with United States presidential election, 1912 should work just as well in 2012 if the need arises.


 * It still boils down to reliable sources. If some elector votes for somebody else other than who they were previously pledged to vote, no doubt there will be reliable sources explaining why that would be the case.  Going back to the original question raised at the top of this discussion, if there are reliable sources indicating that the 1972 faithless elector who voted for John Hospers was a big deal, it should be included, otherwise it should be ignored.  In that situation, it should be noteworthy for this discussion that John Hospers was so insignificant that he isn't even mentioned in the lede paragraph of the article (yes, that could change, but it is indicative of his notability).  Otherwise mentioning this particular candidate at all seems to be a bit of POV pushing (sort of hyping up 3rd party candidates if I have to mention a particular POV that is being pushed in this case).  Even more interesting is that in that whole section which actually talks about Hospers, there isn't a single citation given at all.  I'm not saying that section needs to be removed, but that any mention of this fact should be cited and should also be the case if that happens in 2012 in any state.  Otherwise, what seems to be happening here is guessing the future on no basis of fact.


 * Find the sources and try to show in some way that the information being presented doesn't violate WP:FRINGE or other similar policies. Try not to perform any original research, but instead at least find out what the newspapers and other media outlets of the day were saying about those candidates.  If such faithless electors were somewhat of a shock and newspapers of the day are discussing the errant votes and there were subsequently actions taken to make sure it doesn't get repeated in the form of legislation or party rule changes, then by all means cite those sources and mention that in the article.  If such votes were largely ignored by the media outlets of the day, then by all means such votes should also be ignored in the article as well due to verifiability and notability issues.  Notability can apply to sections of an article and who is discussed just as much as they can decide the fate of the viability of an article itself.


 * If the only sources of information you can find talking about a particular faithless elector are minor media outlets (like a blog, party newsletters, obscure primary sources, and other such documents), I wouldn't call that something to include. If on the other hand major media outlets of the day (like the New York Times, Washington Post, or newspapers of similar reputation) were talking extensively about that vote, it should most certainly be included.  Can such citations be found for the 1972 election, and will such media coverage be found for something similar in 2012?  --Robert Horning (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought we were just talking about the infobox, not the article in general. I personally don't think that a proper tally of all 538 electoral votes, however they are composed, is a fringe subject. The result of their collective decision is the election of someone to the most powerful office in the world. I'm not saying we would have to yammer on about Hospers in the article. In fact, I think the current 1972 infobox is fine- it lists Hospers in a footnote below the map. I'm not advocating for the guy to be pictured for getting a single faithless vote. Under my suggestions, he would only get a picture if a.) He won a state or CD on election day (thus getting at least 1 pledged electoral vote); b.) He won at least 5% of the popular vote in November; or c.) The number of faithless votes he gets is "consequential", that is, if it had kept Nixon from reaching 270, or got Hospers himself to 270. It's not really WP:Crystal to say that would be notable. Even if the rest of the media becomes magically braindead overnight (more than they are now anyway) and fails to report that, if we have a source from the FEC that the dude got 270 electors to vote for him, of course Wiki has a responsibility to list who this new President-elect is. This doesn't count as guessing the future, because no one is placing odds on the likelihood of this happening. It's making a contingency for an outcome that is very much possible under the current system. The 1912 template doesn't apply because there were no faithless electors that year.


 * Your other dispute with this seems to be the timing of this discussion. I didn't start it, but as long as we're all now talking about this, why not finish? Sure, it can be brought up again later if and when it actually happens, but at least we'd have a base opinion to build off of. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The principles of writing good articles apply to infoboxes just as much as they apply to general prose, perhaps more so because a casual reader is likely going to pay attention to an infobox more than the main article body. In terms of the 1972 election, I think reliable sources could be found about Hospers, the sad thing is that nobody has bothered yet.  I'm just saying that instead of some very arbitrary policy that seems to go against the grain of existing Wikipedia policies, why not just use existing Wikipedia policies in perhaps a slightly different manner to achieve the same goal?  Winning 5% of the vote or even 0.5% of the vote doesn't matter, but what does matter is if you can find two or three reliable sources about that 3rd party candidate being talked about to establish notability of the person being discussed.  If you can establish notability of somebody in relation to the topic at hand, Presidential elections, then I think listing them in the infobox is more than justified.  If you are struggling to find reliable sources which talk about that person as a presidential candidate, then I think you are likely straining at gnats and such candidacy doesn't need to be included.  What I'm complaining about is trying to expand the number of rules that editors need to deal with.  --Robert Horning (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In elections, five percent is accepted by scholars as a success threshold for third party candidate. That is sourced and is linked either here or on some other presidential election page. To make this an issue of reliable sources and notability is confusing the issue. Of course, reliable sources can be found for any and all candidates. However, that is not a license to list them all in the infobox. Jack Bornholm is exactly right in that a lack of criteria can easily allow activist and revisionism to seep into these articles. Moreover, 68.58.63.22 hits the nail on the head on how the allocation of electoral votes should be accounted for in infoboxes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is confusing the issue at all, and I think any sources claimed for a great many candidates for the U.S. Presidency could certainly be questioned, in particular in reference to election day results. If you need to resort to primary sources to get information about a candidate, I would question their notability in regards to being listed.  Indeed I'd be willing to flip that question around and ask if anybody who earned substantially less than 5% of the national vote could even find a bona fide independent reliable 3rd party source of information about their candidacy and impact in the election? I am arguing that reporters won't be reporting on the candidacy and such sources won't be found.  Some borderline cases might be found where a candidate might have say 3% of the vote and actually get some press coverage, such as how Ralph Nader did have an impact on the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.  Are you serious in suggesting that Howard Phillips got any sort of significant press coverage in that same election?  --Robert Horning (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also add that apart from the scholarly work that's been done on the subject, the FEC's own threshold for deciding which parties should be given grants for their convention & the general election campaign is 5% of the popular vote in the last election. So it's not an entirely arbitrary number. In any case, I think consensus to use the first two criteria I listed was achieved a while ago after several lengthy & painful discussions. We don't need to debate the relevance of Howard Phillips because he did not get 5% of the vote- he did not even get one-tenth of 1%. We should turn our attention to considering the OP's question about faithless electors in the infobox. I am looking forward to more thoughts on what I suggested for that, or what anyone else may propose. The OP also asked that if we have decided to disregard candidates getting faithless votes under all circumstances, whether we should rephrase the criterion from the current "at least 1 pledged EV" to "at least 1 state (including Washington, DC), or 1 CD that holds a EV." To me, the first one is more succinct & effectively means the same thing. However, if editors feel the other wording is better, I'd be happy to edit the note. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, here are some sources that verify the 5% threshold commonly recognized by political scientists and pundits:


 * , page 4: "most scholars follow Walter Dean Burnham, who defined 'successful' third parties as those that attract at least 5 percent of the vote. By the Burham standard, Ross Perot's electoral movement in 1992 and his Reform candidacy in 1996 were extraordinarily successful."
 * : "The 5% threshold was taken from Walter Dean Burnham’s (1970) definition of a successful minor party. The idea is that the 5% cut-off point is a good indication that a political realignment is occurring and there are new issues in the country that the political parties are not addressing."
 * , 13th (or so) paragraph: "In the hundred years from 1864 to 1964 there were only three elections in which the presidential candidate of a minor party received more than five percent of the vote. Since then this threshold has been exceeded by......"
 * Chapter 1, p. 5-6: "To establish a clear, unambiguous measure of success for this study, Burnham‟s 'five percent' definition of success is employed: only third-party candidates who received more than five percent of the vote are included in the analysis that follows."
 * And here are more sources that verify 5% is also the minimum % needed for a candidate to qualify for primary federal matching funds:


 * 
 * 
 * , last paragraph: "Nader concentrated on obtaining 5 percent of the national vote, the minimum necessary to secure federal matching funds for the Green Party for future presidential campaigns."
 * Hence, the basis the 5%-of-the-popular-vote threshold in determining which candidates get listed w/image in the infobox. It is not an arbitrary standard at all. I agree with the aforementioned point that a lack of clear and concise criteria would open the floodgates to "activist" editing that would inevitably lead to edit wars. The current criteria (minimum one pledged electoral vote and/or 5% of popular vote) is fair, reasonable and simple, IMO, and should remain in place. That said, I would be open to having some leeway in the event the hypothetical scenario posited by 68.58.63.22 comes true and a candidate recieves a consequential number of faithless EV's, according to 68.58.63.22's definition of "consequential" ("either garnering 270 EVs & winning the presidency, or accruing enough of those faithless/unpledged votes to lead to a 'hung' Electoral College"). Such an event would certainly be extraordinary enough to warrant altering the criteria. It is also reasonable to have a reciepient of one or more faithless EV's mentioned in the caption of the infobox so that all EV's are accounted for. As for those candidates who fall short of the criteria but supposedly had a significant impact on the outcome of the election (i.e. Nader '2000), that's a very difficult thing to verify. For example, there is no consensus among political analysts that Nader's candidacy "tipped the scales" in the 2000 election or was even a major factor in the outcome. In any similar case, how could one prove conclusively the number or % of votes a particular 3rd party or independent candidate received that would have gone to another particular candidate had that 3rd-party candidate not been on the ballot? That's why it's best to have clearly defined benchmarks, as we currently do. As for the issue of reliable sources, of course the information in the box needs to be supported by RS's. It is a safe bet that if a candidate wins any number of pledged electoral votes (however many or few) or receives 5% or more of the popular vote, there will be RS coverage of that candidate. The same would be true of a candidate who receives a consequential (as defined above) number of faithless EV's. In the extremely unlikely event that such a candidate receives absolutely no RS coverage whatsoever, I agree with 68.58.63.22 that would have a responsibility to report what is confirmed by the FEC. Relying upon the amount of coverage in RS's as a deciding factor would be arbitrary and lead to the problems described above regarding the absence of clear criteria. That's my $0.02 worth and then some.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my suggestion for the inclusion of candidates who's faithless votes lead to a hung EC. I would only picture those whose total is greater than or equal to the number of votes that would have been needed for the person with plurality to reach a majority. Using this year's candidates as an example, if the result is Obama 260, Romney 200, Johnson 70, Stein 8, then only Johnson (who has more than 9), would be pictured. Let's call this Scenario #1.

In the event no single candidate is responsible for the inability to have a majority (for example, Obama 220, Romney 220, Johnson 44, Stein 30, Goode 24), then since the 12th Amendment says only the top 3 get to be voted on by the House, I would again argue for only Johnson to be pictured. Let's call this Scenario #2.

The third and final scenario would be if two or more candidates each hold the difference between someone having a plurality or a majority. Such a breakdown could be: Romney 210, Obama 200, Johnson 63, Stein 61, Goode 4. In that event, one could make the argument for listing both Johnson & Stein (per the reasoning in scenario #1) or just Johnson (per the 12th Amendment argument in scenario #2). I'm partial to the former, but would find either acceptable.

I realize that any of these are very unlikely to happen due to faithless electors, but if we're building a new consensus, it's best to consider every possible application of it. I hope I managed to do that. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the highly unlikely event that such a scenario a those you've described ever come to pass, I think this would a sensible to deal with it.--JayJasper (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!
I thought this information might be helpful to members and observers of this project...

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for US presidential election-related articles and other content is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now: In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries.  There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries.  There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.

Proposal for United States A-Class review process
There is a proposal at WikiProject United States to start an A-Class review process for United States related articles. Please stop by and join the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 - 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 Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 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) 18:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Films about Obama
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Barack Obama. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of verified content, change in scope, NPOV
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:You didn't build that. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Romney video leak for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Romney video leak - 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 Articles for deletion/2012 Romney video leak 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) 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Alben W. Barkley
An RFC on whether this article is too long and contains too many references has been opened. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alben W. Barkley. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(2nd) Nomination of Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 - 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 Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 (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) 19:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of You didn't build that for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You didn't build that 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 Articles for deletion/You didn't build that 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 template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Elections in "State" articles
The vast majority of these Elections in "State" articles are in very sorry shape. Some are fleshed out rather well, but are a tiny minority. I'd like to go through them and at least add a table of the state's presidential vote as I've done with Elections in Alaska (started with Alaska due to simplicity). If anyone would like to assist, please do. Jmj713 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral college request
I've been doing a bit of work today on the category tree, and have noticed a couple of things I wanted to bring to your attention.

Firstly, I'm Canadian and even from my fairly limited knowledge of American politics I was able to catch at least a dozen electors who do have articles but weren't being linked from the lists of electors (List of United States presidential electors, 2000, List of United States presidential electors, 2004 and List of United States presidential electors, 2008). Thus, I'm almost certain that there may still be others whose names I wasn't able to catch, and would like to request that somebody who has more knowledge than I do reviews the lists to make sure that everybody whose name should actually be linking to an article is properly wikilinked. (I also caught at least one case on each list where the link was pointing to a disambiguation page instead of an article about an American politician. In some cases I was able to fix that, but in others there were no political figures listed on the dab pages at all and I had to unlink the name instead — so if in any of the latter cases we do actually have an article about the person in question, please ensure that their name is also listed on the relevant dab page.)

Secondly, I also noticed a couple of cases where a person was filed in the relevant category for that year's presidential electors, but their name was not found on the associated list. This applies to Jerry Springer in 2004 and Beth Chapman in 2000. As Springer's article said nothing whatsoever about his being an elector, I simply removed the category — so if in fact he was, then this needs to be properly sourced and his name needs to be added to the appropriate section on the 2004 list (but if he wasn't, then nothing further needs to be done.) Chapman's article, however, does claim that she was an elector in 2000 — so if she was, then the list of 2000 electors needs to be corrected to include her, and if she wasn't then the claim needs to be removed from her article. (She is listed on the 2004 list, for the record, but I'm not going to presume to know whether the 2000 claim in her article is just an error or whether she was an elector in both years.)

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed changes for United States presidential election, 2016
Members and followers of this project are encouraged to participate in this discussion of proposals for the revamping of United States presidential election, 2016 which, if implementd, may affect the format and structure of other U.S. election articles as well.--JayJasper (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)