Jump to content

Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich are in the section Publicly expressed interest. But the sources are old, time for remove?83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Current consensus is that there must be at least one source where the candidate states their interest in the past three months. They all meet this requirement.ObieGrad (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Peter king PAC? http://www.americanleadershipnow.org/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Jim Gilmore PAC? http://growthpac.us/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a standard for third party candidates to get listed in a gallery? Must they be listed in five major polls?ObieGrad (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, yes, that standard (along with the "held a major office" rule) should apply to all candidates at this point. Another standard, that's been applied in the past, for inclusion in the gallery is that a candidate must have ballot status in enough states to have at least a mathematical possibility of receiving the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Obviously, it's too early to apply that standard. But in time, the Green and Libertarian nominees (both parties already have enough ballot access to mathematically get the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win), and likely the Constitution Party nominee, will be included in a gallery as they have been on the past several election pages.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Trump is in83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidates

Here a list of all the candidates http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2dt.shtml83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is already linked in the External Links section at the bottom of the article.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker announcement

Scheduled for July 13. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/scott-walker-to-announce-presidential-bid-july-13-sentinel From "sources close to Walker" so tentative right now but likely within reason. Consider adding to GOP announcements impending section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to see something a little less tentative than "sources close to" before moving him to the announcements impending section. Anyone else have thoughts on this?--Jcc7292 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree w/ Jcc7292. The given source is too tentative, especially given that an official spoksperson for Walker "would neither confirm or deny a specific date" for his announcement.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ only because Walker actually has a date and not mention John Kasich has hinted after June 30th, unlike Chris Christie who shows no sign of announcing at all. Walker and Kasich should not be sharing space with Christie as they do show signs of announcing when Christie shows no signs at all.--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
"three insiders said the Republican governor and his campaign staff are targeting July 13 as the date for Walker to make the big announcement. There has been some discussion of having it later in that week, but most have settled on July 13, a Monday. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for the governor, would neither confirm or deny a specific date." Sounds too tentative for me, nothing definitive from Walker himself and and an official spokesperson neither confirming or denying the date. IMO, we need need something more affirmative than "targeting" a date from an official source.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, then can the Announcement section be modified to include anyone who has indicated they are moving forward from exploring? Only because as I mentioned, both Kasich (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/05/27/kasich-may-announce-for-president-after-june-30th/) and Walker have indicate they do intend to move forward, I will concede no specific dates, but they do intend to move forward. Chris Christie again has made no definite plans as of yet. It shows a distinct difference between them and Christie that should be expressed in someway. I cant find any sources for Christie come close to anything like Kasich or Walker --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think announcement should be reserved for those who have confirmed the dates. I don't really think we need another layer between exploring and announcing.ObieGrad (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with ObieGrad, and the others who say we need a confirmed date. Besides, I have a hunch we'll be hearing something more definitive from Walker fairly soon.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Walker has a date set, and you should include him in annmouncements impeding.--Mydabo (message wall). 4:47 PM, 19 June 2015 (CTZ) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that is not yet confirmed that he a date set. We need to wait until there is confirmation.--JayJasper (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker

Walker has now a 527 organization https://www.ouramericanrevival.com/ and a testing the waters committee https://www.scottwalker.com/83.80.208.22 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate pictures

Are there better pictures available than there are currently? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried with Trump, but it was reverted.!Ericl (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you give examples?, I can try to replace some of them ...they are US politicians, their images would get changed quite a lot till the elections in November 2016..--Stemoc 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Rand Paul

Do you mind if i put this as a Rand Paul photo in this article? --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

how about this one?..--Stemoc 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In instances where a relatively recent official portrait is available, those should be given preference. This has been a long standing agreement on articles such as Hillary Clinton. I would also advise against using images that are more or less closely cropped than a majority of the other images, as it makes it look unbalanced, as was the case with the Ben Carson photo that was being used, which was a crop of only his head, rather than including his shoulders like many of the other photos. So I think it would be best to have photos that are all at about the same head level to make it more clean in appearance. Calibrador (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore, Hillary's case is different, she hasn't had an official portrait in 6 years, so we use her official portrait cause a good recent image has not yet been added to wikipedia and once it is, it will be replaced. You and I both know you do not care for our policies, all you are searching for here is "fame" and "recognition" and thus you ONLY allow pages to use your images even if the alternate is BETTER, MUCH BETTER. That is a major violation of our policies but you keep doing it and keep getting away with it but I won't allow you to violate them any further, any image which is GOOD enough would be used in these articles, if you have a problem with it, DISCUSS it like everyone else, You will be reverted everytime you violate those policies and remember one thing, Wikipedia is NOT here to SERVE YOU..Either follow our policies or LEAVE...Changing your name doesn't change the fact that you are trying to ENFORCE your images to wikipedia for your own PERSONAL GAIN.--Stemoc 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Donald Trump

I tried this one:here. It's better than the one they had.Ericl (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

any image was better than the old smirky long range shot.--Stemoc 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI on Scott Walker

Recently, Walker and his staff have been tweeting out many things suggesting that he is extremely close to making an announcement. This is the one tweet that arguably signifies it the most:

https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/611926509855440896

With a recent comment saying that he was going to announce on the 13th, along with these tweets- it is very likely that we will get an answer within the coming weeks. Just to let y'all know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb to announcements impending

Recent sources -> [1], [2], and [3] state that Jim Webb will announce his candidacy by the end of June. Should we add him to announcements impending? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As an official date has not been set, he doesn't meet what is needed. If one of them were to state "Webb to announce on June __" then we could add him. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee's Home State

Mike Huckabee is the former Governor of Arkansas. He is now a Resident of Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcadams99 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christie

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-2016-bid-announcement-119354.html83.80.208.22 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

What should we do with Dan Bilzerian? Is his run real and is he running as a democrat, republican of independent?83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

He is probably running for real. Whether he'll end up turning it into more of a joke later on is yet to be seen. Unless he states that he is just joking about running (which he seems to be serious about, same with Waka Flocka Flame) he will be listed as officially running. As for the Democrat/Republican/Other, we have to wait and see what he says. He seems to fit in with the Libertarian camp, but he may just decide to run as an Independent and not go through any of the parties. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

Many of the endorsements for candidates seem to be of the "I like this guy" variety. For example, de Blasio states that he's "a big fan" of Bernie Sanders, but does not say "Sanders would be a great POTUS" or anything like that. I think that the more narrow, blunt "we should elect this guy" kind of endorsement is the one we should go with. What do you guys think? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree I am not sure what the policy on that is but I would certainly say that "I like this guy" should not count as an endorsement. Jadeslair (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree There should be an explicit endorsement of the person as a candidate, not just general praise for them.--2600:1003:B122:962E:0:B:74FD:EE01 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. General praise does not an endorsement make.--Earlgrey T (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with comments above. An endorsement should be a specific expression of support for one's candidacy, not merely a vague "I like this person" kind of a statement.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Walker confirms week of July 13 for his announcement

In a good faith edit, User:ObieGrad reverted my equally good faith edit in which I moved Scott Walker to the Announcements impending section. I did so based on this source in which Walker himself confirms that he plans to make his announcement regarding his speculated candidacy the week of July 13. While he does not give a specific date, I think the fact that Walker himself gives a specific time frame in which an announcement is forthcoming should qualify him to be moved to Announcements Impending. This would be a common sense move, in my view at least. That said, I would greatly appreciate feedback from others on this, and will respect the consensus whatever it may be.--Cojovo (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually feel that "week of" might be good enough, however I think this source still fall a bit short of sufficient: "The week of the 13th is when we will be likely to make our announcement as to what our intentions are". It's the phrase "be likely to" that I think causes this to fall short. I'll follow consensus on this though.
I say we put him in the announcements impending section. We've gotten how many articles that say "July 13" or around that day is Walker's announcement? It seems like for awhile now hes "been likely to" announce. Adding on the fact that his twitter feed has skyrocketed in terms of presidential statements, I think its pretty safe to put him in announcements impending until someone or something states that that week is 100% off the tables for an announcement. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Most major news outlets (NBC, FOX News, Reuters, etc.) are now saying that he will announce his plans during that week. I think we should add him. PrairieKid (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the rush? Let him announce and it will be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no firm date. Kasich said in early June he'd be in by the end of June. That isn't looking likely. Until an announcement of intentions is scheduled, announcements impending is an inappropriate location for Gov. Walker's mention. Spartan7W § 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, there appeared to be a consensus to move to Announcements impending, now there seems to be no consensus either way. I guess we'll leave him in "formally exploring" until there is a clear consensus to do otherwise, which is fine.--Cojovo (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a srong opinion one way or the other as to which section to list him currently, but I do think the notation saying he's indicated he will likely to announce "the week of July 13" seems like a good meet-in-the-middle solution in absence of a consensus. It might be a good idea to do that for all potential candidates who give a vague indication of when the announcement is coming. E.g. we could say that Kasich has indicated he will announce "sometime after June" and that Webb has indicated that his announcement will come "around the end of June" while they remain in the "formally exploring" section.--Thatotherdude (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

"Chris Christie becomes a candidate" : http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-chris-christie-candidate/story?id=32122845

Please update the article accordingly. Thanks. 174.236.0.57 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

:Not Done Yet.Thank you, but the article says he "will" announce, not that he has. His announcement is still impending, the article will be updated after he delivers it.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Update has been made based on Christie's website.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb not running?

I read this article today. It sounded like Webb will not run for president. I'm not sure? Apparently, he was about to announce his run on June 26th, but delayed due to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Can one of you guys read this article to get some opinions on it? -> [4]

It doesn't seem like he is full out not running. It seems more like he decided not to announce his candidacy right at the same time a Senator is screaming Clinton's praises. I'd imagine he soon will announce one way or the other- but until it happens, he should remain in the formally exploring section. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
He's not out of the running, at least not yet. See: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-webb-close-to-decision-on-2016-20150630-story.html --Cagey Slim (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker Files With FEC

Should he be moved to the candidates section now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.2.252 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush photo

Do we have a free picture of Jeb Bush wearing a suit? It looks odd that he is not wearing a suit while all the other male candidates are.ObieGrad (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll switch pics. Generally speaking, I think we should be using here the pics at the tops of the respective articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Candidate pics

It would probably save everyone a lot of time and trouble if the candidate portraits used here are the same ones at the top of the respective candidate biographies at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You prefer the old Hillary Clinton image from 2009 being used on this page? The problem with "official portraits" are that they are usually outdated, dark and not focused...the images used in this page should "solely" focus on their face and be as recent and of High quality as possible...I tried to fix that but i kept getting reverted and blocked because of it so I'm no longer going to bother with this again...--Stemoc 10:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that HRC picture ought to be used at the top of the HRC article, any more than the old official portraits of Huckabee or Bush should be atop their respective articles. But until the HRC pic is changed at her article, I don't see a problem including it here too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing joke/nonsense candidates

At present over 400 people have filed to run for president. There is absolutely no rationale not to include them while including people like Jeff Boss, Vermin Supreme, Zoltan Istvan, Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame), Terry Jones and Dan Bilzerian. Can we establish some criterion for inclusion in this article to avoid giving undue attention and to clean up this page by removing those without any legitimacy? David12345 (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There already is criteria: they need to be notable (have a Wikipedia article). Most of those 400 do not. Ratemonth (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Even having a wikipedia article about a person does not mean that their claim to be a candidate is worth mentioning. For example, some regular Wikipedia editors including me have been dealing with Zoltan Istvan supporters (perhaps all paid employees) who have inserted claims into Wikipedia that a "Transhumanist Party" exists. While Zoltan Istvan is wikipedia-notable, the so-called party does not exist in any meaningful way, the party is not wikipedia-notable. I find that the supporters added the same claim here, and I have removed it. This is beyond fringe, less notable than joke parties that actually do get onto ballots occasionally and even win local elections. Wikipedia is not a media platform for this "party" or other non-entities, and all other items with no legitimacy should be ruthlessly edited out, promptly. --doncram 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we need to find better criteria. How about using similar criteria to when we had "potential candidates". I propose the following:
1) A Stand-alone page on Wikipedia.
2) Mention of their campaign in at least 1 major news publication each month.
3) No endorsement of any other candidate in the campaign.
Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"should be ruthlessly edited out, promptly" - this is evidence of a POV/WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusade against minor candidates that are notable. If you believe a candidate is not notable, then bring the candidate's article to WP:AFD. This article and talk page are not the places to debate the merits of candidates notable by wikipedia standards or to come up with complicated, arbitrary standards when wikipedia already has created one that can be used and has clear consensus here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
We're not really discussing whether or not the candidates are notable--we're discussing whether their candidacies are. And to say that my three criteria are complicated is a bit of a stretch and we've had much more complicated criteria for other reasons (what defines "potential", "publicly expressed", "declined", etc. candidates for example). Finally, to say that we're making this argument because we have some POV against those candidates is also a stretch. Quite frankly, I think Vermin Supreme is not only hilarious but also making a very valid observation about our system. I greatly admire Ted Williams as well for his life story. Basically, my opinion of the candidates has no bearing on my argument. I think we do need to make a change. PrairieKid (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Candidacies=candidates. There is no special political class in the United States. Everyone is notable in terms of running for president. That is why there is no such thing as being notable for wikipedia but not notable as a candidate for office. About the POV, I should have specified I was talking about "doncram." His edit history shows a strong POV against the Transhumanist Party. I could care less about the party, but its candidate is notable (unless it is deleted at AFD). Nonsensical discussion about him or the notability of him as a candidate should not spill over into this page. That is entirely a discussion for AFD.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, now I see this. In no way am I a POV warrior; i am not against a Transhumanist Party. I don't believe anyone has ever called me a POV warrior about anything, ever! I do happen to be against Wikipedia being a promotional platform for a non-notable entity, a potential political party that has not qualified for anything. I suppose I raised William S. Saturn's ire for my deleting the entry for Zoltan Istvan being a candidate of a Transhumanist Party; Saturn reverted; I revised the entry to being an entry as an independent. There is properly no standalone article for Zoltan's proposed party, per consensus of an AfD and other discussions. Participate in ongoing RfC at Talk:Transhumanist politics if you want to assert there is a wikipedia-notable party. --doncram 22:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with William S. Saturn that the current standard suffices. It applies WP:DUE in giving the viable candidates (regularly included in major polls, held prominent political office) top billing and placement in the galleries. As for the others, it merely gives acknowledgment of the candidacies of notable people - nothing more nothing less - and leaves it to the reader to determine whether or not they are "joke/nonsense candidates".--NextUSprez (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - better criteria are needed; having ballot access in one state or credible claim to obtain that would suffice. Also PrairieKid's weaker proposal would work for me. One can be a joke candidate and still be included here, if they do have ballot access. But there are a zillion bio articles in wikipedia. It cannot be automatic that an assertion of interest by any one of these suffices for them to be listed here amongst real candidates. If that were ratified to be the policy here, I rather expect a lot of wannabe Miss America models and minor actors will be declaring their candidacies soon, supported by the ranks of paid promotional editors! In fact I think there are more than a few Miss America-type competitors who have publicly stated their ambition is to become President, already. Should we go looking for those and add them here? --doncram 22:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The candidates listed are real candidates. As was already pointed out, the number of candidates has already been limited appropriately. So this proposal here is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Your entire argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not appropriate on wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Whether the candidacies themselves are notable is an issue regarding whether or not to create a page specifically about their candidacies, as all the major candidates have. As far as this page is concerned, it is a list of all notable candidates, and I think "having a Wikipedia page" is a simple, easy to understand, and objective measure that should be kept. As far Doncram's concerns, I doubt there will be a deluge of actors and Miss America contenders just for the honor of being mentioned in a Wikipedia article, which would require them to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page already. But even if there were, as long as they were actually running for president (by filing with the FEC, seeking ballot access, raising money, making political speeches, etc.) then they would be included. After all, more than a few people claim Donald Trump is running for his own publicity, but he's no less a candidate than the others even if that were the case.--Vrivasfl (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ballot access required?

Is having ballot access in at least one state required, for a third party or independent candidate to be listed? It seems to me that some minimal requirement is necessary to exclude just anyone who says they are a candidate, and to exclude just any group which asserts they are a political party. Perhaps having credible claim that they will have ballot access in one state could be accepted. --doncram 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once the election happens, only those third party/independent candidates with enough ballot access to theoretically win will be listed. See United States presidential election, 2012.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. That helps me see that there is logic and experience behind how this article is managed. --doncram 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just odd

So- there is a cat running for President with a page on Wikipedia. Now, one consensus I feel we should all have is that in order for someone to be listed on this page is they must be human. Thoughts? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I kinda disagree. Other constitutionally ineligible persons like Waka Flocka Flame are listed. Animal candidates can and have been used in the past to make points in elections, and can have a significant impact. See Pigasus (politics) and Category:Animals in politics for other examples. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, a candidate has to be human!. The cat dosen't belong. No brainer.--Dwc89 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Dwc- we should classify that humans can run. The fact that Flame is in is very different- he is ineligible due to age. The cat is ineligible due to age AND species. While they have been used in protest, there isn't any real reason to include this cat. In reality- this is the purest definition of a joke candidate we have. The person who signed him up himself even said it was a joke. He shouldn't be included. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Da Constitution don't say cats can't be president, dont say nothing about them. So da cat is a real candidate and stays. Dat is final!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B842:2A45:0:48:5074:A301 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think its fine to take out the cat when the guy himself says its a joke... Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't even have to get to the merits of this point because this particular cat doesn't even meet the notability requirement. The article was recently created for what appears to be the sole purpose of being included in this article, has been recommended for deletion, and will likely be removed from Wikipedia in short order. --Vrivasfl (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
NO, NO, NO. This is getting ridiculous. We need to change our requirements. The cat is not eligible, is not actually running and is not notable in its own right. Absolutely not. PrairieKid (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Only humans can form an intent to run for president. The cat is not running for president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add prohibition candidate?

This article says James Hedges is "the 2016 candidate for president from the Prohibition party". He has a stand alone article, so apparently he is notable. Can't find an FEC filing for him, but he apparently has been nominated by the Prohibition Party. Should we add him to this page and to the third-party and independent candidates, 2016 page?--Eli755 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with adding him. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
NOTE- I just read that they will, in fact, be deciding on a nominee on the 31st. While Hedges appears to be the party's only candidate, it is possible that he will not be the only candidate running for the party's nomination between now and then. Until the Prohibition Party itself nominates him, he probably should be listed as a declared candidate and then move him to the party's official nominee later on. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hedges was supposed to be the nominee in 2012 also, but then Jack Fellure came in from nowhere and took it. The leadership has been hesitant to nominate Hedges because of his generally liberal views. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Then he will be listed as a candidate unless someone comes forward who could replace him. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Candidate Home States

Republican candidate Carly Fiorina resides in Virginia. Her official Twitter account also lists Virgina as her place of residence. [1]

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee left Arkansas in 2010 and currently resides in Florida. [2]

- Marcadams99 July 14th, 2015

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/carlyfiorina
  2. ^ http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2010/12/04/mike-huckabees-3-million-home

See the earlier discussion on this topic.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


As decided in the other discussion, we are using the FEC filing as well as the last state where the candidate ran for office the determinants unless there becomes a strong reason to ignore that consensus. Huckabee filed in Arkansas (where he is from and where he was the Governor) so he is 110% from Arkansas. Fiorina last ran for office in California which is why I assumed her FEC filing would be from CA as well. I was surprised to find when I googled it that she actually did file from VA. I apologize for not looking into it sooner. Because her FEC filing is in Virginia, I would say we should say she's from VA in the article. At this point, I'd still remind the editor of WP:BRD so that we could have had the discussion without his edit war. So, Fiorina is from VA and Huckabee is from AR. Fair? PrairieKid (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

identifying candidates out of 455 FEC filers to date

I found one previously omitted candidate, Jerome Singleton ("fastest amputee in the world"), so far, in a review of the 455 FEC filers to date that I set up [ a review of FEC-filed names ] in a big table in a subpage, Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/FEC filers. He has a Wikipedia page and (like all others in the table) has (striking per discussion below, and inserting [bracketed updates], --doncram 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)) [ This lists just names of persons or animals who have] filed FEC form(s) as a presidential candidate. Help identifying any more candidates out of the 455 would be welcomed. Please feel free to edit the table (e.g. by adding wikilinks for variations of a person's name) in the process of figuring out if persons have Wikipedia pages. It might be helpful to indicate which ones have already been evaluated. Feel free to use however you like.

I hope this is a helpful small contribution. By the way, I made the table in the subpage by copy-pasting from the FEC's current (as of July 9) listing of Presidential form 2 filers (first into Excel, then converted the Excel table into a wikitable. I used the FEC source version that is sorted by party; a version sorted by date of filing and a version sorted alphabetically by candidate name are also available. This is a valid use of a Talk subpage (note it is not in mainspace) to support discussion here and development of the mainspace page. --doncram 22:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I see no mention of a presidential candidacy for Jerome Singleton in the source you provided. Can you please point out where it says that? I also found no such mention in a google news search as well as a google web search. Also, the Jerome Singleton who filed with the FEC gives a New Orleans address, which does not seem to match up with the person with the WP article, whose residence (according to the article) is South Carolina. Unless we can positively confirm that the person who filed is indeed the same person with the article, we should not list him as a candidate - per WP:V & WP:BLP.--JayJasper (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The Singleton filing may be a hoax. There needs to be evidence that this is the same person or that he actually made the filing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Argh, oops, I made a mistake, and I already reverted myself in the mainspace articles. I think what happened was I mis-interpreted websearch output. I search on something like "Jerome Singleton Presidential candidate" and found the hit on the 2012 interview by Bill Plante, in a page conjoined with some other presidential candidacy announcement. What was visible in the summary search page made me think it was this interview with this Jerome in which the candidacy was being announced. I didn't read through the whole interview as I was convinced it was there as a clear connection of this person to Presidential candidacy. Sorry for the confusion. --doncram 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
While this is a valuable effort, I have been checking the Form 2 list regularly and seeing if there are any new candidates to add. I believe I have, over time, checked every name on the list. It is possible that someone may have gained a Wikipedia article since I checked them though. I did, quite awhile ago, identify Josue Larose this way (he also happens to be the first candidate to file) but he since terminated his campaign committee.ObieGrad (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that note. In browsing about these FEC filers, it's also possible to identify persons who meet notability standards for wikipedia articles that can be created. I think Michael A. Steinberg (or Michael Steinberg (lawyer), as just added by me to Michael Steinberg (disambiguation)) is one such person. He seems pretty normal. He is notable largely because of a his role causing a elections snafu, when his wife Miriam was running for a Florida state legislature seat (that he had run for previously). It leads to J. W. Grant becoming exempt from Florida term limits that he was bumping up against. (See Draft:Michael Steinberg (lawyer) soon). --doncram 00:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As of 7/16 there are now 478 filers listed at the FEC. Steinberg is definitely wikipedia notable, from dozens of news articles significantly about him and his legal-political actions. It remains possible that some more of the redlinked ones at the workpage could be deserving of Wikipedia articles. --doncram 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Image suggestion for Paul, Cruz,

I found this image on commons of Rand Paul in March 2015 -> [5] and this one of Cruz -> [6]. Should they be added as their candidate images? What do you guys think? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Ehrlich be removed?

There has been no news or updates on Bob Ehrlich's move on the race. The source was dated back in April (3 months). Even his article has no mention of his potential presidential run. I think he should be removed or his article updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Per consensus he will be removed on/about July 30 when his last source expires unless there is new news.ObieGrad (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Esteban Oliverez

According to this link Esteban Oliverez is also a Republican candidate. Greenman (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not eligible for inclusion as he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. If he gains a page, then he will certainly be eligible.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

Kenn Gividen has stepped down as presidential nominee of the American freedom party. Bob Whitaker, who was the vice-presidential candidate, is now the AFP presidential nominee. Please change the article to reflect this. Here is the source:http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/kenn-gividen-steps-down-as-american-freedom-party-presidential-nominee-bob-whitaker-to-take-his-place-at-the-top-of-the-ticket/ 2600:1003:B442:8DE5:0:46:B157:CE01 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done I removed the AFP section altogether. The current nominee doesn't have his own article on Wikipedia, which is a requirement for inclusion (per consensus).--Newbreeder (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Should Trump be listed as potential independent candidate?

It seems to me that Donald Trump should be listed as a potential independent candidate in addition to being a republican candidate. Sources: [7],  [8]. He's clearly expressing interest in a possible "third-party run" if the republicans don't nominate him. He doesn't specify any particular third party, so I guess he'd be categorized as an independent until he specifies one (if that ever actually happens). Thoughts on this?--Eli755 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a tough question. I think we should agree that once a candidate has declared for one party, they can't really be considered for another unless they've made some serious inroads towards launching a run. That said, people like Gary Johnson start out running for one and then end up in another occasionally so I will concede it is plausible Trump will do that. One other important thing to note is that several of the current candidates are considered by the media "potential" other candidates. Several sources say Rand Paul could run as a Libertarian or that Bernie Sanders could be an Independent--we can't consider them "potential" candidates or even "publicly expressed interest" simply because of an article or two, even if the candidate says something about it. Like I said, I see both sides here. Maybe now is a good time to remember that if it ain't broke, don't fix it! PrairieKid (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the fact that Trump himself has said it's a possibility, and the media coverage it's generated, I think there should be recognition of his potential independent run. How about if we list him in the independent candidates section as a potential "publicly expressed interest" candidate with a notation stating that while he is presently a declared Republican candidate, he has publicly expressed in an independent/third-party run in the event he fails to win the republican nomination?--Rollins83 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Rollins on this. We have a notation for Waka Flaka Flame because of "special" circumstances (being ineligible), so I think it would be appropriate to do the same thing for Trump.--Eli755 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Rollins83's suggestion. Trump is clearly a potential independent candidate. Significant media coverage and speculation has been generated by his acknowledgment of the possibility of running independent (or 3rd party) if the R's don't nominate him. So I say put him on the independent list with the above-suggested notation.--Thatotherdude (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all the above in support of including Trump on the Independent "potential" list. Seeing that we have a consensus on this, I will go ahead and place him on this list with the notation that was suggested by rollins83.--Newbreeder (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Third party candidates

I'm wondering why Marc Allan Feldman isn't listed under the Libertarian Party candidates. He has declared his candidacy and his official website is here: http://www.votesnotforsale.com/. RyanPrz (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)RyanPrz

No Wikipedia page. If he gets a page he will be listed. Until then- he is not eligible to be listed. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore's announcement

It is currently scheduled for Thursday. "Asked on "The Steve Malzberg Show" whether he is throwing his hat into the ring, Gilmore — president of Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank — said Tuesday: "We'll let you know on Thursday. At that point there's going to be an announcement that you'll probably be interested in, but the goal here is to do the right thing for the United States."" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Jim-Gilmore-interested-presidential-race/2015/07/28/id/659352/

Suggest changing his portion under impending to reflect the 30 July date and not the old first week in August part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.164.86 (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015

The Party of Socialism and Liberation has announced their presidential ticket. Presidential nominee: Gloria La Riva Vice-presidential nominee: Eugene Puryear

The Green Party has gotten on the ballot in Arkansas, while the Constitution Party has gotten on in Arkansas and most likely Alaska.

Also, the Prohibition Party is nominating in a few days, and there is only one ticket that has filed, so we can assume them as the nominee.

Presidential nominee: James Hedges Vice-presidential nominee: Greg Seltzer (Seltzer had previously challenged Hedges, but dropped out to become Hedges' VP)

Also, I think that instead of including candidates with just a Wikipedia page, it needs to include either: Candidates on the ballot in at least one state OR Candidates who have raised $200,000- The Green Papers considers anyone that raises $200,000 to be a "principal candidate".

Thanks to Ballot Access News for the stories. Thanks to The Green Papers for the Prohibition Party info.

216.248.107.107 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the link for the Party of Socialism and Liberalism declaring LaRiva and Puryear as their ticket. I have been unable to find it. The only thing I can find is the 2008 election- which was the same ticket.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have located the referenced story on Ballot Access News http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/party-for-socialism-and-liberation-announces-2016-presidential-ticket/. But I cannot confirm the statement about the Prohibition Party. I ask that the IP address please provide a link supporting the statement about the Prohibition Party ticket.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleting presidential candidacy from lead paragraph

FYI, there's currently a new RFC about whether it's appropriate to delete from the Rick Perry lead paragraph that he is a presidential candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Conventions

The Constitution Party will be having its 2016 Convention from April 13-16 in Salt Lake City, UT (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/constitution-party-selects-city-and-dates-for-presidential-convention/). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I might be mistaken about this, but I think we only include the conventions of parties that have a mathematical possibility of getting the minimum electoral votes needed to win the election based on ballot access. At the present time, I don't think the CP has ballot access in enough states to meet the criteria.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If equal standing in the navbox, why not equal standing in the article?

I had thought that Wikipedia's current coverage of the 2016 election (or at least as it was presented in the navbox) would set a new precedent for the inclusion of third parties, and thus I wanted to harmonize it in the least intrusive manner possible.

  • The Green and Libertarian parties, no matter how little of a chance they have, at least get the opportunity to obtain the minimum 270 electoral votes.
  • I didn't add every other Green or Libertarian candidate that was on this page, as they didn't have Wikipedia pages (save for the excluded Kent Mesplay redirect).
  • I didn't embellish the Green and Libertarian parties' sections when I moved them, nor did I try to tone down the sections on the Democratic or Republican parties.

Do they thus not warrant some type of level inclusion? Are we going to completely reject the idea that exceptions to Duverger's law can happen? Doesn't it make such articles unnecessarily biased? mahir256 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You had the right idea. We did something similar on the 2012 election page in the last election period. I've mostly restored your edits. One difference from your version is that third party candidates aren't given a gallery section. At the present time, only candidates included in 5 or more major polls get to be "gallerized". Based on precedent, I assume we will also place the nominees of parties with ballot access to the minimum 270 electoral votes in a gallery section as well (nominees, that is, not just candidates). Otherwise, I believe you had it right.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina Image

Why are we using an image of Fiorina that is a different shape and pose from all the others? Wouldn't this one be better to use?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, the pertinent discussion is here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What relevance does that have to this page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It explains why the cross-eyed picture that you've suggested is not optimal, and also discusses the various alternatives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not look cross-eyed to me. But even if she is, why should this be hidden? From what I read, it just sounds like it's not your preferred image. However, in fact, it is far superior for this page than the current poorly shaped image with a microphone. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Per guidelines, "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page....[It] should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." An image that catches a subject in an unflattering pose is generally unexpected. Why do you prefer this image to all the others discussed at the article talk page? I'm not the only editor who considers this image to be cross-eyed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You're really pushing it. That guideline is to prevent using images like this. The image I proposed is neutral. It's not cross-eyed, she's looking to the side. If you're going to be that nit-picky then why aren't you saying that the current image being used is cross-eyed? She's looking to the side in it too! Plus, the image is far too small when used in the gallery here for the reader to even see her looking to the side.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to an image that is looking to the side a bit. What I object to is the appearance of one eye looking in a different direction from the other eye's direction. Anyway, we could save a lot of time and energy if we just use here the lead images from the individual BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not a very long-sighted policy. Images on election pages should be contemporaneous with the election. Why aren't you objecting to Trump's image which seems to have the same issue you cite?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like the Trump image at this article is the same as the top image at the Trump BLP. And the image doesn't look cross-eyed to me. Both of his eyes seem to be looking at the same thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
You're making me think this is a COI issue here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? I have no connection to Fiorina or Trump (or any other campaign). You can look at the Fiorina talk page to see that others objected to the image you're suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure many of her supporters frequent that talk page. You sure were quick to come in and try to prevent the better image from being inserted. Do you have a directive from the campaign to prevent insertion of the photo because Fiornia feels like she doesn't look good in it? That's the vibe you're giving off right now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I already said "I have no connection to Fiorina". If you think it's the kind of photo that she wouldn't like, perhaps that's a clue that it is not the kind of photo that is suitable for Wikipedia. Anyway, I won't comment further here, and others can chime in if they want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. We don't have to cater to the vanity of subjects.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think she would prefer the current image instead of the one you propose?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Because of your reaction to an obviously better image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Makes no sense to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So we agree. The better image should be inserted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
We agree that the better image should be used, but disagree about which image that is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
How can you defend an image that has a microphone protruding into the candidate's face?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oy. The tiny microphone is what made the decision difficult at the Fiorina talk page, and it's why we need to be on the lookout for better images. Christie's pic includes a microphone but it doesn't get in the way of his face. The main point is that many images were considered at the Fiorina talk page, most of them without microphones in her face, and you are now endorsing the worst one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with this one? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's much better than the cross-eyed one. In fact, I uploaded and cropped it. However, another editor at the Fiorina talk page opined that it still looks "creepy". Life will be much more peaceful, and discussions will be less repetitive, if we just use here the top images in the candidate BLPs, while keeping an an eye out for better photos as they become available. We don't have to proceed that way, it just seems advisable. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Another look at Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame)

Is there some point at which we can agree that a person may have said they were running for president, but they aren't really doing so? I'm thinking primarily of Waka Flocka Flame in regard to this, but I suspect Dan Bilzerian falls into this category too. Neither one has filed a Statement of Candidacy with the FEC yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we have the rule that they have to file with the FEC within 14 days of the announcement that they're running? It still gives them some time but it would eliminate candidates that are not really running. Of course, once they file (if they file), we would readd them at that time. Does that sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
No. That is completely arbitrary. The 14 days is based on nothing. Moreover, FEC filing is legally necessary only if a candidate plans to raise a specific amount of money. An announcement is all that is necessary as per past consensus. This requirement may be met by an FEC filing but that is not the only way.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree in part with PrairieKid and William. Federal law defines a "candidate" for president as someone seeking nomination or election as president who receives campaign contributions or makes campaign expenditures of $5,000 (or authorizes someone else to do so). A person must file with the FEC within 15 days after becoming a "candidate". (I remember that in 1996, Ralph Nader avoided raising or spending $5,000 so he wouldn't have to file with the FEC. However, he actually got on the ballot in 21 or so states as the nominee of various state Green Parties and managed to get 0.7% of the national vote.) I guess the next question in my mind is: How do we know that someone who has announced a presidential campaign, but hasn't filed with the FEC, is really running for president or was just joking about their campaign? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we can say that Malphurs isn't "really running for president"—he can't. — Liebensraum (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
He endorsed Clinton here: http://national.suntimes.com/national-politics/7/72/994306/waka-flocka-flame-hillary-clinton 71.105.96.33 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
He gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOwakaNOflockaNOflame (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The Constitution prevents Waka Flocka Flame from serving as President until he's 35, but does it actually bar someone from running if they're not eligible? Of course if someone ineligible were to win that would cause a problem, but the person could still theoretically be a "candidate" even if ineligible. Unless the FEC stops the candidacy in its tracks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Green Party convention

The Green Party has announced its 2016 national convention will be held in Houston in August of 2016:http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/02/green-party-will-probably-hold-presidential-convention-in-houston/.

Can someone please add this to the conventions section. I'd do it myself, but am not sure how to do the map formatting. Thanks.--Ewers1 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the GP to the list, but I don't know how to do the map formatting either. Hopefully someone who does will take care of that shortly.--Odin'16 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Logos

Logos should not be used merely for decorative purposes. There is no reason to list them on this page or any other election page. I propose the logos be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So no logos on the campaign articles either? The logos represent each candidate, just as much as their portrait does. The reader goes out and sees Hillary's logo, Bush's logo, Kasich's logo, etc. and they affiliate it with the candidate. The Obama logo in 2008 is a perfect example. These logos don't meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, and thus, they need not be limited solely to a single page (i.e. BMW logo). By including the logos, we allow the reader to connect the campaign with the candidate, and it allows for a uniformity among articles; plus, they illustrate the article just like any other article's images, otherwise, this and the other pages become dull lists. You really don't have any substantive rationale for their exclusion. Spartan7W § 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with campaign articles where they are used for identification and so qualify as fair use. They are being used on this page purely for decorative purposes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So are images used in any article. You buy a print encyclopedia, some have no images. We don't need to have any images at all. Rather, we place images for the purpose of educating the reader, of connecting the realm of the physical world with the factual described in an article. There is no need for a portrait gallery, since they're only decorative, right? The campaign logos are of encyclopedic value, because the image and branding of a campaign are as relevant and important to strategy and the course of a campaign as the things they say. Using this logic, an article discussing the United States presidential election, 1944 shouldn't feature an FDR-Truman poster, which is only 'decorative', using your logic. Spartan7W § 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. These images are not free use. They are fair use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These campaign logos do not meet the threshold of originality, they are non-copyrightable items. (as below) Spartan7W § 23:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can post any tag on any page. That doesn't make it true.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I am going to have to side with Spartan on this; I see no reason for the removal of the logos in question, that any decoration (provided it is within the spirit of the article and done within reason) is a bonus that draws interest to the article as a whole, and that the format as originally presented actually reinvigorated my interest in working here on Wikipedia. I'll admit it needs a few tweaks given the Republican section as presented was running off the page, but ultimately I find it an improvement over the old style that I myself used to use. --Ariostos (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear. Use of most of the logos on here is in violation of fair use. Period. They cannot be on this page or any other page not about the individual campaigns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The matter has been brought to the attention of the administrators on Commons. It will be resolved shortly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Reading the link on fair use you had provided I personally didn't see any conflicts arising as they remained associated with the individual campaigns, but inquiring as to the opinion of the Administration is the best course here. --Ariostos (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Economic and foreign policies of the candidates of United States presidential election, 2016

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

Bernie Sanders

Could we add Sanders to Publicly expressed interest or Potential as a third party/independent candidate?83.80.208.22 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Sanders himself ruled out a third party run. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

When did they get the circular photos with the nifty hovering info thingies?

I never saw them before, cool! YoursT (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By editing a rectangular photo into a circular template with transparent borders, they organize quite easily, and the hovercards have been around for awhile, but are seldom used. Spartan7W § 19:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
They are seldom used because more often than not, they tend to violate WP:CLICKHERE and WP:ACCESS, especially when trying to instruct users with mobile and text-based web browsers to "hover here" despite the fact they may not have a mouse. Or a user with a disability trying to use a screen reader, thus making "hover here" practically meaningless. And "hover here" is especially meaningless on the printable version, because the caption that becomes visible when you hover over the image is instead automatically printed below the image. Thus, it should be reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a useful feature for an article such as this one. It conserves white space and gives the page a cleaner layout. As long as it doesn't defeat the functionality of a screen reader, I don't see any accessibility problem. The single line of text ("Hover over images...") ain't hurtin' nobody. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
What about my first point about users with mobile and text-based web browsers who may not have the ability to "hover here"? What about them? Are you going to address that? They are not "nobody" you know. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:NOSYMBOLS: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." How is that also not relevant? This is what we are instructing all users to do: using hover text essentially. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So what about them? If we display to them a single, short line of text that informs them of a feature they cannot use... so what? How does it make sense to deprive 99.9999% of the readership, when the feature in question does no harm to the 0.0001%? That's retarded.
CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS do not apply, because it is not necessary to click or hover to obtain information. It's all there in the text of the article, every bit of it, complete with Wikilinks. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a user does have to hover over the image to get the name of the person in the photo. The text in the rest of article does not provide the information as to which face in each image matches which candidate. Thus, CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS should apply in this case. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that the captions somehow just (POOF!) disappear if the user isn't viewing Wikipedia on a standard computer with a mouse attached. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. You yourself have already shown us an example of what happens in a case like that--the page renders as it does in the print version, with the captions below the photo. At that point we are left with the sole issue of the text "Hover over each photo to view label detail", which is a non-issue if ever there was one. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the circles and "hover-over" feature. First of all, the circle images are ugly and uneven. Rectangular images look better and decrease the ugly white space between the circles. Second, mobile users make up a very large percentage of readers. This hover-over "feature" is a huge disservice to them. I would like to revert the page to its state before the uglification and before it was rendered inaccessible.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugly is not an objective opinion. I have received various degrees of praise in email/thanks for these, so some people in fact like them. The fact is, the hover card gallery would not be an extant option in wikicode were it not intended to be used. Now, because the above table does provide detailed information on campaign, title, office, etc., perhaps mention of just their name is prudent, to cover the photo less. Also, looking at these on a mobile platform, you can touch the image and it will appear as a pop-up over the page and show the image. You can look at it and hit the 'x' in the top right corner to go back to the article behind the pop-up. It works quite well. Spartan7W § 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt you received phrase. In fact, based on my years of dealing with sockpuppetry on wikipedia, I'm pretty certain the person who started this thread is you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've changed the captions of the Democrats to include only their last name, linked to bio. On a mobile platform, the hover space only cuts off a small slice of the image, thus making the face visible. A good improvement. Also, I have no sockpuppets, sir. Please don't personally attack me. Spartan7W § 19:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. I'm just highlighting a very common way that unscrupulous editors try to make it seem their changes have more support than they actually do. When someone comes on here from nowhere and their first edit is to compliment a change to an article that just happened, that is very suspicious.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, and it has nothing to do with your going around reverting edits I've made with no reason? Or reporting my files for copyright violations both with lack of evidence, and without being so courteous as to notify me of this? Spartan7W § 19:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any requirement on Commons to notify a user. However, you were notified on this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The "hover over" does violate WP:CLICKHERE, so I removed it. Does it violate WP:ACCESS? I'm uncertain. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If I add alt fields to the images, I see no other violations. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images Spartan7W § 19:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I like it. I am able to view it on my phone just fine by tapping it once, and I can double tap to click on the image. I honestly think it's an improvement, and should stay per WP:IAR. However it's just my opinion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To me, they clearly go against the tenets of WP:CLICKHERE, WP:ACCESS, and general principles of encyclopedic formatting. Overly gimmicky. --Varavour (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If you think this looks bad, take a look at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016, complete with logos, state outlines and other frivolous crap.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A Call for Consensus

User:Spartan7W has been experimenting with this page for the past couple of weeks, adding logos, circle images, and a complex template where a simple list would suffice. He also chooses to use some official photos, but not others. He claims these changes have consensus. However, I dispute this claim. I would like to see if there is consensus for his changes. Specifically:

--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been experimenting willy-nilly. I have made thought-out edits over a period of time, taking suggestion and improvement from editors and reached consensus on inclusion of various elements, what should and should not be included. Additionally, I have received thanks for these edits. You need consensus to remove my improvements. You don't remove and then ask to keep. It is established preference to include official portraits where they may be applicable and available. In cases where an official portrait is old, a new one of equal quality is included, i.e. Hillary Clinton. Simply because your photos are new, do not make them superior. Your Chafee, Sanders, and Webb are all inferior photos, and those subjects have not aged/changed their appearance significantly. The portraits used in the Republican section, in lieu of official ones (whose age is recent), are also inferior.
  • The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.
  • The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.
My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. Spartan7W § 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the changes make editing and viewing the page more difficult. The table splits the candidate name, campaign page, office, and references and makes it more difficult to edit and follow. As for the circle images, the circles are not used anywhere else on Wikipedia and do not look neat on the page (on my browser I don't know how it looks to you). On a mobile device, the caption covers up half the image. If circles are to be used then every time someone wants to add a new photo it has to be made into a circle. That adds an unnecessary step that makes editing this page more difficult. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an experiment in design.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@William S. Saturn: shouldn't this be formatted as a RFC? That way it would attract a wider audience and generate a more formal consensus. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to first try to get consensus from the regular editors of this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of restoring a sane version of the article. Both "Candidates featured in major polls" sections are god-awful, the circles are gimmicky and completely disconnected from the table entries for the pictured candidate. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
God-awful is not a rationale to undo changes which have persisted for awhile, and which discussion has established basis for improvements. WP:BOLD applies. Why not reach consensus. Spartan7W § 23:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
A week is not a while.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It was sufficient time for discussion to rebuild the table, change captions, meet Wikipedia rules, change sizing, to refine and alter my original BOLD edit. Thus, WP:BRD doesn't apply. Spartan7W § 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


I ,honestly, am not sure I like either of these. The list tends to be harder to read and appears to be more of a jumble of words sometimes, and the circles aren't connected to the person they represent so someone looking at it for the first time isn't always going to be able to tell which candidate is which. To me, the list of candidates should do the following:

-Show what the candidate is known for (IE Ted Cruz has been the Senator from Texas since 2013)

-Show where the candidate is from (IE Carly Fiorina is from Virginia)

-Provide a link to the candidate's campaign page

-Provide a picture of the candidate

These are the simplest things we could do. And they've already been done (with a few additions) on the individual party pages. You can sort the candidates, see certain information about them, and are provided links to their campaign pages. That is the perfect compromise I think. In all honesty, the circle VS square picture debate isn't that major. I, personally, think the pictures are better as circles and not squares. It focuses more on the specified person and less on the background.

This is just my two cents on this issue. I think this would be a good compromise- but what do you guys think? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Personally, if I may include my two cents, I liked the table of the circle version but disliked the photos of the circle version. I felt like the circle version information was well put together and easier to read than the block of text that is currently used. However, the circle photos were confusing and disjointed from the rest of the information. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Use the table from the circle version but the rectangular photos? --Stabila711 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: See RfC below please! Spartan7W § 01:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah my bad, that's what I get for not reading the whole page first. Thanks. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note there is an option of which you described, option C Spartan7W § 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment Remodeling of major party candidate areas


The following discussion has been moved to its own subpage per Help:Talk Pages. Please visit. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And for those who don't see the link, click here Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Series Boxes for candidate

Note to editors: Some candidates, Hillary Clinton, Rick Perry, and Bernie Sanders all have a series box (sidebar) for the careers of their respective subjects. While these are valuable and useful, please see this note on the Presidential Election WikiProject before considering starting one for any of the 22 major candidates. Thanks!   Spartan7W §   01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_5&oldid=1084061746"