Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 2

message: His own article says he is no longer a Republican.  Is there any justification for listing him as a potential Republican presidential candidate?  PubliusFL 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the Alan Keyes article needs to be fixed, then.  It says he is registered with the Constitution Party, not the Republican Party.  Do you have a source? PubliusFL 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh then in that case, I was mistaken. --GBVrallyCI 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you were right about Keyes still being a Republican.  The bit about him being in the Constitution Party has been removed from the article, because it appears to be based on speculation.  As of this point, however, he's not actually a candidate for any particular party's nomination, and the movement to draft him doesn't appear to be linked to any particular party.  So if he belongs in the template at all he should probably stay in the independent section for now. PubliusFL 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FEC records  states he is seeking the Republican nomination. See here -- Yellowdesk 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from 2000.  This is more current, but doesn't appear to indicate any particular party. PubliusFL 08:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good Catch. I stand corrected. Independent. (And wildly unlikely to accomplish more than 5% of any vote.) -- Yellowdesk 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Keyes 

message: I am from Virginia and often get leafleted by the Indy Greens but I can find no source anywhere to say that their candidate from senate, Gail Parker, is running for President. Their website makes no mention of it and her campaign site is left over from her run against George Allen and Jim Webb. --GBVrallyCI 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gail Parker

message: What is our standard for "potential candidates"? Doesn't any native born citizen over the age of 35 qualify?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yup, every U.S. born citizen over 35 is a potential candidate.  It's in the notability that decides if they're worth writing about. -- Yellowdesk 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential candidates 

message: Shouldn't they be declared under Republican candidates? Casey14 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. They aren't at any of the debates and neither ever show up in any polls.--Southern Texas 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cox, yes.  He's running a national campaign.  Smith, no.  He's only campaigning in Oregon. — Valadius 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's absurd.  Just because they arn't in the debates dosn't mean they arn't running.  The mainstream media dosn't invited them, which is not their choice.  The same goes with national polls.  They arn't included in the list of candidates.  Cox should be readded. Casey14 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Charles Smith and Cox

message: I think that Chuck Hagel should be removed from the list since it is very doubtful that he will throw this hat in and because when he is included in polls he does extremely poorly. What does everybody think?--Southern Texas 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No objection from me -- Yellowdesk 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing potential candidates discussion

message: I would like to have a poll to see if you think that John Cox should be included or not.  I don't know how to make the wikipedia polls for talk pages, so if someone would like to set that up that would be great.  If not, we can do a freehand vote.   
John Cox should be included because he is included in many national polls, however registering low.  He is campaigning nationally.  The media is excluding him from debates.  According to Wikipeda's no-bias POV, media should not be able to sway us, with their propaganda.  John Cox will also be in the Iowa Straw poll with all the other major candidates: http://www.iowagop.net/ .
Yes or No?  I say yes, he should be included.
Casey14 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to including Cox.  When candidates like Mike Gravel are eventually dropped from the debates, Wikipedia will still list his candidacy.  Cox should be included on the Republican side, too. Italiavivi 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should Cox be included and not these:
*Hugh Cort
*David Ernst Furniss
*Daniel Ayers Gilbert
*Walter D. Kennedy
*Mark Klein
*Michael Charles Smith
*Richard Michael Smith
*Raymond L. McKinney
*Keith Sprankle
*Vern Wuensche
We aren't listing minor candidates because it would clutter up the template. Cox is a minor candidate, I never see him in any polls, and he is not included in the debates because his polling is so low. NOT MAJOR. Read United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008#Other candidates--Southern Texas 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess you didnt' look at my link to the Iowa Straw Poll.  He was included, with every other "major candidate".  http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07may10.cox.fox.exclusion/index.html  That's another link.  Please, we do not represent Big Media on Wikipedia, or their reasons for discluding candidates for their own selfish reasons. Casey14 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another link including Cox alongside the "majors": http://www.gastongop.org/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 . Casey14 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who participates in the straw poll. McCain and Giuliani didn't participate so that is not a way to determine who is minor and who is major. Cox gets way lower than 1% in the polls about, .2% and can in no way be taken seriously. The media doesn't include him because he is not major.--Southern Texas 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The media's willingness (or lack of willingness) to include candidates in televised debates does not determine Wikipedia's content.  Cox has a national campaign, and competed in the Iowa Straw Poll.  He's not on the same level as the other red-lines and minors you link. Italiavivi 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion. I believe they are on the same level, he is polling at .2%. Somebody polling this low cannot be considered "major" and have their "campaign" taken seriously. Non-notable candidates should not be listed, that is up to par with wikipedia's standards.--Southern Texas 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a No-Bias Initiative. John Cox has all the same credentials as all the other "majors".  He is not on the same level as the ones you listed, because they are not nationally campaigning.  McCain and Giuliani didn't participate, but they were still on the Straw Poll.  I guess it dosn't matter how many links I give you, because your mind won't change, but Wikipedia's policy is behind us.  Casey14 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a policy of notability WP:NOTABLE, please follow this policy instead of trying to blame the media for everything. Cox is a minor candidate with a campaign that is a joke and should not be taken seriously. Stop trying to act like it is biased to not include somebody that is polling at .2%, how about people that are at .0003% or .00833%, shouldn't they be included? Maybe I'll decide that I'll run and file the proper papers and then put my name on the list. No, this is ridiculous and this needs to be the standard, if your campaign is lower than 1% and you're not included in debates at different events sponspered by different organizations and media outlets you should not be included on this list per WP:NOTABLE.--Southern Texas 23:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find an ACADEMIC source that states John Cox is not a notable candidate, then I might somewhat agree with you.  Notability is not just based off poll numbers that are based off of the media's coverage and name notability.  Right now three members agree with including Cox, yet you are the only one against the inclusion of him.  If Cox is notable enough to have his own page, while running nationally for president, then he is just as notable to be included on this list.   Casey14 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: According to wikipedia's notability standards: "Notability is not the same as the concepts of fame or importance. A subject that is not famous or that is not important is not automatically non-notable; and conversely a subject that is notable is not automatically famous nor important. The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people." Casey14 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also according to some nation-wide polls, Dodd, Gravel,and Hunter have 0 percent.  Why are they notable, according to your standard? Casey14 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not looking at mainstream polls. I use mainstream polls that are notable and have a good reputation and Cox's numbers are so low in these polls he doesn't even put up a number. The campaign of Cox is not at all notable. Apparantly he's only important to about .2% of the public. Is this a large enough group? I don't think so. I could think of people who don't have an article about them yet are important to more than .2% of the American public. I'm not saying that Cox is non-notable but his campaign is non-notable when compared to Romney's, Giuliani's and other's campaigns.--Southern Texas 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ames Straw Poll is a notable-enough event, and he was included.  The guy is running a national campaign, as opposed to other candidates who are only running in their own state, etc.  Discriminating against the guy just because he's never held a government position is outrageous. — Valadius 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because somebody participates in the straw poll and finishes in last place with .3% of the vote behind two candidates that didn't even participate doesn't mean a candidate is notable enough to be on this list. Its not discriminating, his campaign is weak, unimportant, and frivolous, its non notable. Thanks for mentioning that he never held a government post, I never brought that up so it helps my argument when you characterize my supposed "discrimination" of the campaign with something that I never said. Why don't you attack the substance of my argument. These other candidates are running national campaigns like Cox and by your standards this is "discrimination" against them as well. We have to draw the line, I and the mainstream draw the line at 1%, wikipedia should reflect this and not give a minor candidate even standing with candidates that are running legitimate campaigns. Otherwise by your standards all the candidates I listed should be on the list as well, if not your counterdicting yourselves.--Southern Texas 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just said his campaign is "unimportant, weak, and Frivolous".  That is your own biased opinion, and again it breaks Wikipedia's No-Bias POV.  All the candidates you listed cannot be on the list, because they are not campaigning nationally.  John Cox finished last yet, all the other candidates were national candidates, in the Ames Straw Poll.  Wouldn't that also mean he is a major candidate?  Stop with your frivolous personal vendetta against a candidate.  Wake up. Casey14 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mainstream political observers consider his campaign a joke because most of them are part of one of the major media corporations, who have already picked the candidate they want to win, and will put down all the minors (which include guys like Huckabee, Biden, etc), so that their candidate will win.  They want negativity to come to the non majors.  Again, you didn't listen to me earlier.  Giuliani and McCain were in the straw poll, maybe you can't read or look up the results.  They were in it.  They didn't particpate in the events, but they were in the straw poll.  The nationwide polls are outdated and cannot determine who is a major candidate or not.  According to you, Dodd, Gravel, and Hunter shouldn't be included because they poll 0% in the non-scientific nationwide polls, which usually only polls the elderly who do not have caller-id.  What about all the people today that do not have land-lines, but cell phones.  Most of the people who are polled in these polls watch the major media stations (or don't pay attention to politics at all), only getting exposed to the big 3 in each party, thus corrupting the polling procedure.  Most of the time, those polled won't even vote in the primaries, since only a small portion of Americans vote in the primaries, those that are politically involved, more than not. Wikipedia is not here to pick the president of the United States.  Cox is in nationwide polls, competed in the Straw Poll, alongside Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and McCain, is in most smaller straw polls, and has a nationwide campaign.  What else do you want.  Do you want him to have 30 minutes in a debate, while Giuliani gets 5 minuets?    Casey14 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you're not making sense and your supplying misinformation. Only Gravel has fallen under 1% in mainstream polls but he still climbs above that number time to time, Cox on the other hand is always way below 1%. Why do you think the media hates Cox? It doesn't make any sense. The list should only be for major candidates that are above 1% not jokes like Cox.--Southern Texas 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tired of talking about it. You seem to think that the media has some conspiracy against this guy for who knows what reason. I say we just take a poll and end this.--Southern Texas 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll for John Cox

message: *Remove I support the removal of Cox from the list--Southern Texas 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I don't think that the current Ames page has any business on this template. This template is specificly for the 2008 Presidential election, and the Ames page, as it is now, only dedicates a small portion to the 2008 event. If someone wants to create a page that is specificly relating to the 2007 event, then I think it would be alright to be included in the template, but not at this point. Mburn16 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could link to the specific section within the article. Italiavivi 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ames