Jump to content

Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Edit request from 68.41.32.124, 7 August 2011

Ken Grammer is still running, so he should be put back on. Robert Burck, Roseanne Barr, Stewart Alexander, Jack Fellure, and James Hedges do not have there papers turned into the FEC, so they shouldn't be on here. Grammer should be put back on though.

68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're Usenduro, right? Please don't use sockpuppetry to promote Grammer's campaign; that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, this edit is both uncivil (calling other editors trolls) as well as an admission of an apparent conflict of interest in your part. Please read up on Wikipedia policy regarding these areas, and don't keep re-adding Grammer since consensus has already been established that he isn't notable enough to mention. Difluoroethene (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Every time Grammer was added here yesterday it was with a redlink. To be listed as a candidate there needs to be a Wikipedia article about the person.Ratemonth (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. SOXROX (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article he created, before it was speedily deleted, Usenduro revealed that he is in fact Ken Grammer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

KEN GRAMMER

Ken Grammer should be under Independent candidates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 07:34, August 9, 2011

You already brought this up in the section above. He is not notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia community consensus. Give it a rest. —Diiscool (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 Not done Consensus will always say he doesn't belong until he has an article that passes AFD. Now go away please. SOXROX (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do some research. Your making wikipedia look like a joke. Ken Grammer and Joe Schriner are the only two independents running for President. I'm not going away. This dishonesty and bias you have for certain candidates is unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google News search on "Ken Grammer" and "Kenneth Grammer" pulls up one (1) news article. That is not notability. Perhaps if Mr. Grammer gets himself an interview with the New York Times or the Washington Post this would be a different story. If he can't even abide by the community consensus on Wikipedia, how is he going to lead the United States of America? —Diiscool (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect Mr. Grammer, you and Mr. Schriner are not the only Independent candidates for president that have filed with the FEC. Here is the complete list: Andre Barnett, Whence Brown, Savannah Bush, Tanner Bush, Scott Cain, Joseph Charles, Paul Chehade, Liza Cherricks, James Cooper, Jeff Davis, Kenneth Domagala, Verl Farnsworth, David Frey, Herman Goodman, Raedeen Heupel, John Hoelzel, Samuel Hoff, David Kilgore, Kristen Tollefsen, Robert Lee, Brad Lefler, Michael Levinson, Ed Maddox, James McCall, Ronald McCune, John Parmele, Samuel Powell, Rajesh Raghavan, Dan Rozelle, Stephen Shadden, Michael Stollaire.
As you can see, there are too many candidates to reasonably list on this page. Therefore, we only include candidates that reach wikipedia's threshold for notability. At the moment, you are no more notable (by wikipedia's definition) than any of these other candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'M NOT KEN GRAMMER! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BRICK HEAD! I'M A 13 YEAR OLD THAT'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT YOU'RE WRONG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And you know what else is funny? You say candidates like Ken Grammer are not eligible to be on your bias page, yet you have candidates that aren't even running officially like Roseanne Barr, Robert Burck, Stewart Alexander, Jack Fellure, James Hedges, etc. You also have so many candidates that people don't even pay attention to - Jonathon Sharkey, Jimmy McMillan, Andy Martin, Randall Terry, ALL OF THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES - so this is just proof that this is all bias. Also, I can tell you've had problems with Grammer in the past, and that's a reason to act like he's not running for President? TRY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT I AM NOT KEN GRAMMER OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WIKI MODERATORS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. OH, YEAH. KEEP IN MIND THAT I'M 13 AND I HAVE TO TEACH YOU HOW TO MAKE A NON BIAS PAGE. Got a reply to this? I'll argue all day and night to get the right candidates on and the wrong candidates off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign so you can all see me. --------------------------------

Want to be blocked? Because we'll gladly ask an admin to do it for disruptive editing. SOXROX (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

First, try to make a wikipedia article for him. To be included in this page, they need their own article. Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That has already been tried and failed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Bryan Grammer. It seems very suspicious that the above user claims to be a 13 year old, yet Usenduro (who seems to be the same user) claimed to be Mr. Grammer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'M NOT USENDURO! I'M NOT KEN GRAMMER! I'M JUST A 13 YEAR OLD BOY FROM ILLINOIS THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ELECTION!

Then you will understand each year, enormous quantities of minor, insignificant candidates run. Look them up on google, there are a bunch of people who just are not notable enough to gain the media attention satisfactory to letting them being sourced on wikipedia. Also, talking in all caps makes you less likely to be taken seriously. The policy is that only people notable enough to get their own wikipedia pages get to be in these articles, therefore, as Ken Grammer is not notable enough, he does not get to be in this article. Other candidates than just Ken Grammer have had their pages deleted and information removed from this article, so this is not some sort of crusade against Grammer, this is the policy for these pages. You could hold a vote on this talk page to try to change the policy to let these people be inculded, but unless the policy changes, Grammer, or any other candidates who don't have their own articles, will not be included on this article. Thunderstone99 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Thunderstone99 is right. We are sorry for your inconvenience. It would be great if you could go away now. Hermanator1 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Declined to Run

I think it is rather pointless to have the full list of people who declined to run on this page. Not only does the huge list + their quotes take up a lot of space, since they declined their role in the election is set to being nonexistent short of endorsements/VP nominations. All three groups of people who declined are on the separate primary articles, and I suggest they be kept there. Perhaps even prospective candidates can be moved there to, considering that now the majority of candidates who are running in the primaries have declared, it is less important to keep tabs on the others. Thunderstone99 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We could link the declined section from the primaries articles to this article to take the old ones out. However, there should be a section for candidates who entered, then pulled out of the race. SOXROX (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This page is not a scoreboard. For accuracy, every notable candidate that entered the race needs to be listed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that the decline list is not necessary for this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that having the "declined" list on this page is excessive, given that the lists are already on the respective corresponding candidates/primary articles. This is the system we've used for previous election-related articles, and it seems quite sufficient.--JayJasper (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Since everyone seems to be in agreement to delete the section that has the declined candidates, I will do that. I suppose prospective could still be kept, as they may still enter the race, unlike the declined people. (should a declined person move up to prospective, they would be re-added under that) Thunderstone99 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being the first person to tell me what I can do and not telling me I'm Grammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.32.124 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are Grammer. Do not play these games with us. Hermanator1 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could be a part of the "game" as well. You just started this account today and headed right to this discussion. Just my gut, but I think you're a part of the game too. SOXROX (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page

I've found out something. There are candidates running who are not on here. Like the following: Andre Barnett Tom Miller Ken Grammer And more! Why aren't they on here? Also, I think that maybe we should make a separate section for candidates like Robert Burck, Roseanne Barr, Stewart Alexander, and Jack Fellure, who have not yet turned in their papers but claim to be running. What do you think? Hermanator1 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of the IP.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you have no other word to use but sockpuppet. Do you know any other words? 68.41.32.124 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

perennial candidates do not belong

I deleted three people listed as candidates whose primary notability is "perennial candidate". This hardly includes the entire list of such people, and mixing these people up with the serious candidates makes the whole page look like a joke. People come to this page to see who are the serious candidates, and there are a lot of them; mixing in non-serious candidates is no help at all.

I also strongly suspect that Fred Karger should be deleted. Note also that Karger is the only candidate with no corresponding "campaign" page, which strongly indicates that he has no real support. His WP page is also notably thin. Benwing (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Please read the talk page archives.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that Karger, in a recent nationwide poll, actually finished ahead of Gingrich. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If perennial candidates are running, even though most of them are just jokes, they should be included, because they are running. If they have filed with the FEC and made an official announcement, they should be included. Also, Fred Karger should be included for the reasons above and he made it into the debate that is happening tonight. Hermanator1 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If every candidate that filed & announced were included on this page, there would be 188 candidates on the page as of the time of this posting. There would undoubtedly be well over 200 by the time of the election, the article would be massively WP:TOOLONG and its reader-friendliness would be greatly hindered. Wikipedia, by its own stated policies is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See plank #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, thus we include only those who meet the general notability guideline.--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the list of FEC filers I posted in my above comments is listed in the "External links" section of this & other 2012 election-related articles, so all candidates who file are listed, though the vast majority are not listed in the text of the article as they do not meet the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Karger's not in the debate but I agree he belongs. He has recieved soem coverage for his campaign and made a a big stink every time he didn't get into one of the debates. SOXROX (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I apologize. I misunderstood one of Karger's statements. I thought he was being included in the debate, but he's not. He should stay on the page though because he is not a perennial candidate. Hermanator1 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sharkey

Sharkey announced to a radio show that he will withdraw from the race. When it happens, and as it happens with other candidates, I suggest we keep their images in the table, but unbold their names.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which radio show was it? We could use the broadcast itself as a source (maybe not for this article, but in Sharkey's article) indicating that he plans to step down. Difluoroethene (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sharkey sent out an e-mail and called it the "The Big Chat Radio Show". Here's a excerpt from the e-mail:

"On Tuesday night during an interview on The Big Chat Radio Show, I announced that I would be filing with the Federal Election Commission my withdraw from the 2012 Presidential Campaign, because their is no way I want to be on the Titantic. I'm taking my row boat and going to Hollywood to do my movies.

AND as I also said on The Big Chat, in 2014, I will run as a Republican against Rick Scott for FL Governor."

--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

2016 page

Too soon for a 2016 page? The media are already speculating on candidates - [1] [2] and pollsters are already polling on it - [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.42.74 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This page was created three times before the 2008 election and deleted or redirected each time. The same would happen here. I personally think there should be, but unfortunately consensus seems to say otherwise. SOXROX (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be a page. WP:CRYSTAL allows for future events to have pages, especially as we know the 2016 presidential election will be the first Tuesday of November 2016. With all the speculation of candidates on the 2012 page, there's not all that much difference between it and the 2016 page (aside from the declared candidates, of course). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Per SOXROX, the consensus has spoken, repeatedly. It would be best to wait until after the 2012 election has taken place.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If there's enough sources, of course, we could always fight the consensus. This page was once locked until "January 1, 2012" before that was lifted. I have no idea if there's enough credible information on 2016 speculation, especially since it hinges so much on the 2012 outcome.--Tim Thomason 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of personal interest, I started listing individuals that have received speculation for the 2016 election at User:Southern Texas/2016.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That could be useful, Saturn. Are you going to add polls to it as well? Another poll here on Democratic primary candidates for 2016. Yes, it's early, but worth saving for the future all the same [4] Tiller54 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to add polls, but I certainly see how that poll would be useful in the future so I will make a new section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
There should be a 2016 page! --Smart (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do after a candidate withdraws...

In the above section "Sharkey", I tried to begin a conversation on what to do once candidates withdraw. I anticipate that several will drop out after tomorrow's straw poll. Should we place the candidates in a separate section? (while noting that in the future all but one will be withdrawn) or should we simply unbold the name? (my preference). --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have a "withdrawn" section - see the Democratic Party candidates section. Of course, that doesn't mean we have to keep it that way, but I think we should make a distinction between the withdrawn candidates and the exploratory candidates (although Roy Moore appears to be the only one remaining in that category), and just unbolding the names doesn't make that distinction. I lean towards keeping the separate section, but am open to other ideas that make it clear to the reader that the candidate has withdrawn his/her campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Unbolding the names wouldn't be the right way to do it because Roy Moore is unbolded due to still ahving aan exploratory committee. Yes, we could remove him for that reason, but I think we should have a separate section with a date that each candidate wihdrew along with the reasoning. That's what Warren Mosler's status is on this page, so why not make that customary? Therefore I'm with JayJasper on this. SOXROX (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to list the date of withdrawal & the reasoning, since we don't post the date candidates declared candidacy on this page, like we do on the primaries/presidential candidates articles. On those articles, yes, include that info. But I think it would suffice to keep the "withdrawn" section as is, with just the name and title listed on this page since it is a broad overview of the election. The sub-articles are there to cover the more "specific" info on the candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Miller

Why is Tom Miller (R) not added to the list? Tom Miller 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart30 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For reasons described ad nauseam on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur perennial candidates should not be added, but this is Mr. Miller's first run. He has a website (unlike the other minor candidates).

This is Wikipedia, we should not discriminate and determine who is and is not a serious candidate. --Smart (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability makes that determination. To quote User:JayJasper from above:

If every candidate that filed & announced were included on this page, there would be 188 candidates on the page as of the time of this posting. There would undoubtedly be well over 200 by the time of the election, the article would be massively WP:TOOLONG and its reader-friendliness would be greatly hindered. Wikipedia, by its own stated policies is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See plank #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that merely being a candidate does not establish notability, thus we include only those who meet the general notability guideline.

I consider this matter closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Nothing has been answered, I've already read JayJasper's post long before I wrote this article. --Smart (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smart. Tom Miller should be on here because he's not a perennial candidate - he is for real. Hermanator1 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, so he's not notable. Instead of wasting your time here you should write an article for him (though it'd probably just get deleted because he's probably not notable in any way). Ratemonth (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, not having an article on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean one is not notable, only that notability has not presently been established on WP. The longstanding consensus has held that, given the vastly numerous list of candidates that emerge in every election cycle and the relative few that receive significant and persistent coverage in multiple reputable secondary media sources, it is necessary to limit inclusion to those whose notability has been established per WP standards, specifically those who have an article well-sourced enough to survive an Afd.--JayJasper (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone a while back, if I remember correctly, wrote an article on Thomas Miller but it failed to survive AFD. The same fate also befell Ole Savior and John Davis (Colorado politician), in addition to the aforementioned Ken Grammer.
Notable for one event means someone is written about within the article about the event, and the person's name can be redirected to that article. Perennial candidates are not notable for only one event, so they cannot be redirected to one particular article. imo they should have their own articles, even if those articles are perennial stubs. Ole Savior is covered by the reputable media including the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Which is more than some Pokemon, comic book, literary, TV and film characters can claim, yet they have their own articles. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually felt the same way, which is why I opposed deleting Ole Savior. If you feel strongly enough about the deletion, you can always contest it at DRV. Difluoroethene (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Perennial candidates without an article could be redirected to Perennial candidate#United States, as long as there are sources to verify their multiple candidacies.--JayJasper (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In going thru with creating the article, you must know that it WILL be challenged at AFD. So be ready and make a well written, well sourced article. SOXROX (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pawlenty Withdraws

How should we list Pawlenty? The way I did it is only a proposal and I'm open to any different way to list him and other withdrawn candidates. SOXROX (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty did not withdraw yet. He is still in the race. It says on his website. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, he did drop out. Sorry about that. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I find the description (name and date) perfectly acceptable for now. Eventually there will be an article similar to Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008 and the withdrawn candidates will likely be handled in that fashion. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The picture should not have been removed from the gallery unless we plan to not have a gallery in the future, since all but one of the candidates will eventually withdraw.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see only running candidates in the gallery. I support reverting to how it was earlier. --Smart (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please keep withdrawn candidates in the gallery.Ratemonth (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Remove Once a candidate has withdrawn, the photo should be removed. Having thier name under "Withdrawn Candidates" is sufficient. An alternative suggestion is to move the withdrawn candidates photo to the end of the gallery rather than maintaining it in alphabetical order. user:mnw2000 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Official candidates, current and past

Please add this link

to External links. That's the official list and can also be used to adjudicate arguments over who is and is not a candidate. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is already posted under External links, and has been for some time.--JayJasper (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear - the point was to add at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to the line so it would be clear this is the one and only official list. Not all our readers know what a Form 2 Filer is, but they've heard of the FEC. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for clarifying.--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, to avoid endless links in future, I would suggest adding:

  • {{Dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/President}}

It has the C-SPAN link included in the News and Media section, so that could be dropped. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)  Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.49.154.248, 12 August 2011

If you go to the article Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012, you will see that Rick Perry has neither formally declare candidacy nor even form an exploratory committee. He is simply speculated to run (same as Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, George Pataki, John R. Bolton and David Duke). Can you please remove him from the Republican Party candidates? Thanks! 77.49.154.248 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the citations for Perry, they say that he will announce his presidential candidacy on Staurday. I don't know what others will think, but I think that obvious intent is a good reson to put him on the list. We did the same with Jon Huntsman Jr. SOXROX (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't the same. Huntsman formally declared candidacy on June 21.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No, what I meant was Huntsman was added around June 18-19 because it had been leaked that he would announce at a rally on the 21st. The same is happening here with Perry. It's just a formality. SOXROX (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I dislike this whole "I'm going to announce that I'm going to announce something!" charade these politicians do to get as much free press as they possibly can. I personally would not encourage that behavior (not that they would pay attention to us anyway) by not listing Perry as an announced candidate until he actually announces. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it may be formality dear SOXROX but Perry may die before sunday so he will be unliste "automaticaly". I am certain that we must unlist Perry and see IF he will really declare candidacy or it was a "game" to get free press as Muboshgu said.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done: As Rick Perry has officially announced his candidacy, this issue is now moot. Topher385 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing a Libertarian party candidate

RJ Harris of Oklahoma has announced he is running for the Libertarian Nomination. Thought you might want to add him to this page...If you need to confirm his campaign website is www.rjharris2012.com. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.87.164 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be added. He doesn't have an article. SOXROX (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
He seems notable enough for an article. I'd write one myself, but I don't know if I'll get enough free time to research and write it. Anyone else up for the challenge? Difluoroethene (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Green Party National Meeting

Could someone please add the Green Party to the map of national conventions? Here is the press release: [5] -- WiiVolve (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The National Meeting is not the same as the Party's 2012 National Convention, the dates & location of which apparently have yet to be determined.--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, they have always been the same place and time. -- Monte Letourneau 18:52 23 Aug 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Jonathon Sharkey

Excuse me, I just noticed Jonathon Sharkey had been moved to Independent candidates, and he is actually a Republican candidate. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on his inclusion at the republican primary talkpage has questioned that he's even running as a republican. I think that's why he was moved. SOXROX (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Sharkey is still filed as a Republican. Hermanator1 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Readded SOXROX (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SOXROX. Could you also get his photo in the gallery, or could someone do it, because I don't know how. Hermanator1 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Geanark, 24 August 2011

The line "withdrawn" above Kent Mesplay's (Green Party) entry gives the false impression he has withdrawn; he hasn't. See http://www.mesplay.org/ Geanark (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done by User:Ratemonth --JayJasper (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.144.68, 24 August 2011

As Pawlenty withdrew there is no point in including him in the list as his name is with the withdrown candidates.

46.246.144.68 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to keep his photo. Eventually all but one republican will have withdrawn, you know. SOXROX (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Sharkey Dropped Out of the Race

On August 24, Jonathan Sharkey announced to the FEC that he was ending his presidential campaign for 2012.

MISCELLANEOUS REPORT TO FEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.138.122 (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We also need his picture to say he dropped out. I was thinking we could actually have a format like on the Republican Primaries 2012 page, where the withdrawn candidates' pictures are all below the candidates in the race. Hermanator1 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the separate table format is a good idea. However, Sharkey's name has been removed from the primaries page per consensus on that talk page so he shouldn't be mentioned here. SOXROX (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt Damon of New York

Damon, listed under "Prospective Candidates/Democratic Party", is from New York, not Massachusetts. (He was born in Massachusetts.)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_damon#Personal_life

72.82.174.53 (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done! SOXROX (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Matt Damon? I removed him from the page. The Guardian source talks about Michael Moore ranting about Obama and then bringing up Damon. The Caller source simply rehashes this. That is only one independent source, and is definitely not enough to make Damon a prospective candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Roy Moore added twice?

Roy Moore is added as a candidate for the republican nomination and as a prospective candiate for the constitutionparty. Shouldn't this be changed, and which party should he be listed for? SOXROX (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He is currently running for the GOP nomination, but has said that if he doesn't win the GOP primaries he will most likely switch to the Constitution Party and seek that party's nomination. So he should be listed for both, as is the case right now. Difluoroethene (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed him from the Constitution Party listing because one of the sources was just a re-hashing of the first. Per consensus, there must be two unique sources that are not primarily based on the other.--JayJasper (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a second unique source. Thunderstone99 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No FEC Papers

I personally think that any candidate up on this page should be off if the don't have their papers filed with the Federal Election Commission. These people would be Stewart Alexander (SPUSA), Roseanne Barr (I), and Robert Burck (I). I also think Jack Fellure (P) should be off. He has papers turned in saying he is running as a Republican, not as a Prohibition Party candidate. James Hedges should also be off because his papers are not turned in, much less is he running for this office. Hermanator1 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This should answer all of your questions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Saturn. I appreciate it. You couldn't find anything for Barr, Burck, Alexander, or Hedges? I didn't know how to get to that part of the FEC website, so I really appreciate it. If you find anything else, let me know. Hermanator1 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the Republican primaries talk page on this issue, and why an FEC filing should not be an absolute criterion for being listed as a candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Separate page dedicated to all candidates

Personally, I don't like the new, "more exclusive" criteria that appear to have been implemented, since I don't think FOX News (or whoever runs the debates and/or polls) should have the ability to decide who is or isn't worth mentioning here. However, it looks like William S. Saturn and I have been outvoted. So, may I make a suggestion; perhaps we should start a separate article called List of 2012 United States Presidential Candidates? That list could mention all declared candidates for the office, perhaps even those who don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Meanwhile, this article and the article on the GOP primary would follow the new standard for inclusion. Seems like this compromise would be the best of both worlds (it'd avoid cluttering up the main election page with fringe candidates, while at the same time it would allow long-shot and minor-party candidates to at least have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, rather than excluding them totally). Difluoroethene (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to exclude candidates from this page or the Republican primary page. The only consensus was to recategorize the candidates on the Republican primary page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I would support your proposal of a list of candidates, if it meant that this page remained with only the major candidates, and the other candidates listed in list format. Gage (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gage above. The page is definitley in the best condition its ever been and the creation of this new page should not have any effect on this one. SOXROX (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I support Difluorothene's "best of both worlds" proposal. Agree w/ Gage & Soxrox that it should not affect the current format or standards of this page.--JayJasper (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Currently, I like it the way it is. All the third party people still have their images on their own page, just not here (once the ballot access is confirmed we might be able to add the Libertarian, Green, & Constitution Partiers back). I don't see any reason to create a whole page just to list the candidates. A bunch of the candidates that the FEC has listed are unconfirmed to be real people, such as St. Augustine de Bounaparte and Jewel McCumber Bush. Thunderstone99 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I support the current format and oppose a list of every non-notable registered candidate. We already have excessively long articles for all the notable candidates by party. Reywas92Talk 04:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
There is precedent for such a list. See List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. Although Thunderstone makes a good point about some candidates being unconfirmed as actully existing. So if we create such a list, we should require that each candidate listed have reliable sources outside the FEC.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I like the new page for just the candidates, however, currently there is no link to the Republican Primaries page from this one. I don't know whether or not we should add it under the republican section, or perhaps make a new primaries section? Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a link below the candidates article link.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should change the format to make this more like the 2008 article. Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you're saying. That would probably be best.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Improved map for convention locations

Since {{USParty}} makes the distinction between the major parties, the larger third parties, and the smaller third parties, I think the map of the sites of the 2012 party conventions should reflect that. Witness the difference:

Is there a good reason not to make this change? 67.101.5.23 (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think this is a good idea, but we'll see what other think. SOXROX (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's a good idea. It's consistent with the format.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to change the map to the new one. Thunderstone99 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


With no objections,I going ahead and changing the map. SOXROX (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

incumbent president

Im not sure whether or not this is an issue, but is having Barack Obama listed as the incumbent president a violation of the "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy? Its almost certain that he will be, but anything could happen. In contrast I notice that the space for democratic nominee is blank, but an Obama nomination is also nearly a sure thing.Crd721 (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If "something" happens, I'm sure this page will be updated almost immediately. As for the nomination, it hasn't happened yet and is far less certain than his remaining the incumbent president. —Diiscool (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that Obama IS the incumbent President. It doen't say in the article that he WILL be the incumbent, just that he is. SOXROX (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
If something did happen, he would not be the president at the time of the election, though. Crd721 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Diiscool has addressed that hypothetical issue: if "something happens" before the election, the page will be updated accordingly. As of now, Obama is the incumbent, and rightly listed as such in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of bold and italics to convey information

I'm unhappy with the use of phrases like "candidates in italics have dropped out" and "declared candidates are in bold" and would much rather have the attributes of candidates conveyed by words rather than a variation of font. It reduces the accessibility and readability of the article somewhat. Alex Sims (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understad why it makes the article harder to read, if that's what you're saying. SOXROX (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text says: "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion), so struck-out text is read normally along with any other text."
I think it would clearer even for people who are not using screen readers to have separate lists for declared candidates, undeclared candidates and former candidates. Ground Zero | t 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
All but one will be withdrawn eventually.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a separate list for withdrawn candidates in the Republican section but not in the others? A little consistency would be helpful and certainly less confusing for readers. I think all sections should have a withdrawn list. Then, when all but one becomes withdrawn, we simply remove the "withdrawn" title and merge it with the candidates list.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr and Robert J. Burck

Does anyone know if Robert Burck has filed with the FEC?

Also, I looked into some stuff, and found out Roseanne Barr's FEC identification number is P20002804. Is this true? Does it come up on fec.org?

Hermanator1 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, what about Stewart Alexander? Has he filed with the FEC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.21.159 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Green Party Convention

Does anyone know when the Green Party National Convention is going to be? If so, can it be put on the page? Hermanator1 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find any info on that from an internet search or on the the GP website. Don't think that's been announced yet.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Campaign Finance Updated June 28, 2011 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource regarding global warming and resulting climate change

Where Did Global Warming Go? by Elisabeth Rosenthal published October 15, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Climate change policy of the United States for starters. 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Time (magazine) resource regarding Moderate and Purple states and independence

Middle Of The Road by Joe Klein Monday, Oct. 24, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pew Research Center for Excellence in Journalism via Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting resource

Anti-Obama Media Bias? Not Quite October 18, 2011 by Peter Hart ... new study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism that found Barack Obama has been subjected to far more "negative" coverage than any of the Republican presidential candidates. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama and/or the Presidency of Barack Obama? 99.19.47.214 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It only states Obama there, and Republican candidates. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Status Quo Bias

Twice, the gallery for the Socialist Party candidates was removed on a claim that third party candidates should not be treated equally. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutrality#Impartial_tone. By treating other candidates as lesser and to be ignored and remain faceless makes for an impartial tone in the article endorsing the status quo, which would make this a partisan article. It is not giving any more to any candidate's viewpoint to have their picture, so there is not an issue of balance. Already, the listing of all third party candidates below in a separate section makes them seem less prominent.

Going beyond this is a means of supporting the status quo which is a clear violation of the Neutrality mandate. KV(Talk) 10:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believed that then why did you only add a gallery for the Socialist candidate and not the others?--William S. Saturn (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I only had the pictures for the SP. I'm not really sure if the others have pictures available or not; if so, it should be added for them too. KV(Talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
However, I'll look later today. KV(Talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to you placing these candidates on the page. However, I want to make it very clear that it is not our job as wikipedians to bring social change. The fact that third party candidates are less prominent, less influential, less well-known, and far less important to the article merits the gallery for third party candidates.--Screwball23 talk 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that the inclusion of only major party candidates - and other candidates who have attained enough ballot access to theoretically win the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election - (which is the present standard) in the gallery violates WP:Neutrality. Rather, it is a proper application of WP:DUE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource;

After Obama's Broken Promises, Will Green Voters Sit Out 2012? The Nation Editors September 14, 2011 ... This article appeared in the October 3, 2011 edition. Excerpt ...

“If he didn’t mean it, he shouldn’t have said it.” Referring to President Obama, environmental activist Bill McKibben was saying this a lot during the sit-ins he recently led outside the White House to urge Obama to block a climate-killing tar sands pipeline to run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Two weeks of protest resulted in 1,253 arrests, making it the largest act of civil disobedience in the history of US environmentalism. It concluded September 3, one day after Obama made one of the most fateful—and shameful—decisions of his presidency: ordering the EPA to delay new regulations on ozone emissions because the rules pose undue “burdens” on corporate polluters. ... the independent panel of experts advising the EPA were unanimous in recommending the tougher regulations, which would reduce incidence of child asthma and avoid 12,000 deaths a year. Second, Obama’s order was possibly illegal. The Clean Air Act expressly forbids the government to consider the economic impacts of its regulations; public health is the sole criterion (a stipulation upheld in 2001 by the Supreme Court, with none other than archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion). EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who has described the existing regulations as “not legally defensible,” has now been undercut by her boss, raising questions about whether she—the administration’s strongest environmental voice—will resign. Third, in making his announcement, Obama channeled the antigovernment mantra of the Chamber of Commerce, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory…uncertainty,” thus buttressing the discredited argument that regulation costs jobs. Fourth, Obama blatantly double-crossed environmentalists, who were suing the EPA over these regulations when Obama took office. His aides persuaded them to drop the suit because Obama’s EPA would soon strengthen the regulations. Overriding the EPA in this manner sets an ominous precedent for the tar sands decision, which Obama is scheduled to make by year’s end. Bear in mind, as the president likes to say, that both decisions are his alone; he can’t blame Congress for tying his hands. The EPA has twice lambasted reports by the State Department that absurdly claim that the Keystone XL pipeline—projected to transport the dirtiest fossil fuel on Earth across 1,700 miles of North America, including the crucial Ogallala aquifer — would have “no significant environmental impact.” Citing the EPA’s estimate that the tar sands in Alberta, if burned, would emit 82 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels, McKibben has called the pipeline “a fuse to the second-largest pool of carbon on the planet,” behind Saudi Arabia. The claim that the tar sands will reduce US dependence on petro-dictators is just as dubious. One of the refineries the pipeline will supply in Texas is half-owned by Saudi Arabia’s state oil company. ... If Obama approves the pipeline (XL), explains Courtney Hight, his Florida youth-vote director in 2008 who was arrested in the protest outside the White House, “it is just human nature that the resulting disappointment will sap the enthusiasm that drove us to work so hard last time.”

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying we should add it, I disagree. If this actualy becomes an issue in the election, which I doubt, maybe we can add it then. SOXROX (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Does the article mention Executive Order 13514? Environment September/October 2011's article Legislating Climate Change on a National Level has a nice simple summary of the the patchwork legislation in the US. 99.190.85.146 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Is Executive Order 13514 likely to be a factor in the election? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
See Executive order and List of United States federal executive orders. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Communist Party USA National Convention

U.S. Communists plan 29th convention, call to action The Communist Party USA is making plans for its 29th National Convention to be held the weekend of May 21-23 at its national headquarters in New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.21.159 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they've put a presidential candidate on the ballot in quite some time.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the CPUSA article, the last time the party ran a presidential candidate was 1984. Unless they are going to be running one this time around, the convention is not relevant to this article.--Rollins83 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They're not. They're endorsing Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.21.159 (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us/politics/republicans-turn-judicial-power-into-a-campaign-issue.html October 24, 2011 by Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear; excerpt ...

G.O.P. presidential candidates are issuing attacks on the federal courts, stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a particular target. 99.35.13.28 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama team moves to rekindle 2008's magic with young voters by Susan Page in USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter resource

The G.O.P.’s Very Rapid Response Team by Jennifer Steinhauer, published October 24, 2011 on page A14 of The New York Times. 99.112.215.159 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this woman notable?

Here's another announced candidate, but is she notable? [6]. Difluoroethene (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that she is. There appears to be only a small handful of local news items published about her candidacy. Not enough to meet the standards of WP:N or WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

GOP Unleashes TV Ad War WSJ resource

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203911804576653603558157010.html OCTOBER 26, 2011 by PATRICK O'CONNOR AND NEIL KING JR. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please unsalt the redirect over at Terry Jones (pastor) and start a short biography of him? He really ought to have his own article; after all, he has caused a great deal of ongoing controversy and criticism for the past few years, and now that he's running for president he's even more notable. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He's certainly notable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked the admin that protected the redirect to unprotect so that a bio can be written.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlisted candidates and criteria for inclusion

After looking at edits recently made to this article by User:Difluoroethene, I noticed that he added Vermin Supreme as a Democratic candidate, based on the following web sources:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/28/filing_period_to_get_on_nh_primary_ballot_ends/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67115.html

He then also added Stewart J. Greenleaf as a Republican candidate based on the second source.

The first issue I want to raise is therefore that I do not believe Greenleaf should be mentioned as a candidate based on this article's criteria for listing candidates: "Please provide at least TWO reliable SECONDARY sources per candidate before adding candidate(s) to this section." Greenleaf only has one source.

Another issue, however, is based around the second source I linked above, because it lists many other candidates not mentioned on this article have put their name down for the New Hampshire ballot. For the Republicans, Vern Wuensche, Mark Callahan, Hugh Cort, L. John Davis, Joe Story, Linden Swift, James A. Vestermark, Jeff Lawman, Joe Robinson, Keith Drummond, Randy Crow, Michael J. Meehan, Benjamin Linn, Christopher V. Hill, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Timothy Brewer, Kevin Rubash, and Bear Betzler. For the Democrats, Darcy G. Richardson, Aldous C. Tyler, Robert B. Jordan, John D. Haywood, Bob Greene, Craig Freis, John Wolfe, Jr., Ed Cowan, Cornelius Edward O'Connor, Bob Ely, and Edward T. O'Donnell.

In addition to this, the following web page http://2012.republican-candidates.org/ lists as Republican candidates three candidates not mentioned in this Wikipedia article: Vern Wuensche (again), Tom Miller and Matt Snyder.

So should these candidates be mentioned on this article? The criteria for being listed in this article, according to the article itself, is "The following are individuals who have either formally announced that they are running for president in 2012 and/or have filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or have formed an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run in 2012." Does that not apply to the candidates above?

Even if we follow the rule which I mentioned that there need to be TWO secondary sources stating that candidates are running before we can list them on this page, does not Vern Wuensche pass this criteria? Based on his appearance in both of the following sources:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67115.html

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

If so, Wuensche should surely be listed on this page as a Republican candidate. Or does this article only list candidates who have Wikipedia articles about them?

Matthew Fennell (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading this Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#No FEC papers, I'm even more confused. Is being filed with the FEC, as per http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/presidential_form2nm.shtml a neccesary qualification for being listed on this article? If so, why does the article itself state that "The following are individuals who have *EITHER* formally announced that they are running for president in 2012 and/*OR* have filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), *OR* have formed an exploratory committee for a possible presidential run in 2012"? If it is a neccesary condition, then I guess that the people User:Hermanator1 wants removed should be removed (although Greenleaf should be removed anyway because he only has one source).
Furthermore, is being filed with the FEC a SUFFICIENT condition for being listed in this article (apart from the need for two sources)? If so, is the only reason that the 200+ people listed here http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/presidential_form2nm.shtml who are not listed in this article, are not listed, that two secondary sources can't be found for them?
I'm starting to think you guys must have worked out the rules for inclusion in this article for yourselves a long time ago, and I'm talking BS because I fail to understand those rules. If so I apologise, but I would appreciate it if somebody could shed some light on it for me. Matthew Fennell (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The most important criteria for inclusion on this page is notability according to wikipedia's standards. Having a wikipedia article satisfies this criteria. However, also required is a statement of candidacy or FEC filing, and two independent sources. Hermanator1 can't seem to understand that an FEC filing is not legally required for individuals that do not raise a certain amount of money. That is why many third party candidates have not filed. Further, if only one source can be found for Greenleaf then he should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Roy Moore

Roy Moore, who is listed here United States presidential election, 2012#Constitution Party as a possible candidate for the Constituation Party, has, according to this source http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ddb92b92c1924f939a851d0ae7834832/AL--Ten-Commandments-Judge/ (third paragraph from the end) dropped his exploratory committee for Republican run for president in 2012.

I don't know whether this should affect his listing on here as a possible candidate for the Constituation Party, but I just thought I'd point it out since he was recently removed from his listing on the article Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012 because of the same link. Matthew Fennell (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, WP is not a memorial, so I guess we don't celebrate good news either. The story says he wants to run in AL again for chief justice. What's odd is that there are so few stories--really nothing besides the one you linked. I didn't see it in the local papers either; his campaign must really not have amounted to anything, and his article indeed needs some updating as well. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7&oldid=1251934901"