Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2008/Archive 4

message: === Question 1 ===
Does the information about candidates creating media buzz (eg  Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice) belong  in Wikipedia?
'''
* Yes --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on standards for inclusion 

message: Does the information about candidates creating media buzz (eg  Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice) belong  in Wikipedia?
'''
* Yes --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 1 

message: If the information about candidates creating media buzz is to be included in Wikipedia should it be added in the main page for U.S. Presidential Election, 2008  or should it be included in a different page?
'''
* Main Page --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 2 

message: Does the information about candidates with "draft candidate"  movements (eg. Condi Rice , Dean ) belong in Wikipedia?
'''
* Yes --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 3 

message: If the information about candidates with "draft candidate"  movements is to be included in Wikipedia should it be added in the main page for U.S. Presidential Election, 2008  or should it be included in a different page?
* May be different page --Boshtang 19:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 4 

message: Based on the results of the earlier poll, here are the guidelines for sections containing active / potential candidates. Propose amendments if you feel differently. --Boshtang 23:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is not how Wikipedia works. Polls are used to attempt to gauge sentiments and build consensus, not to set absolute rules. You are free to propose these as standards for inclusion, but you may not unilaterally decree them to be the rules. RadicalSubversiv E 23:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with these guidelines.  First, the poll above has whatever significance it has.   Assuming that it has any significance, it is not up to one person now to interpret the poll and state what the "consensus" was in the form of "guidelines", especially given that it is very unclear how User:Boshtang got from the poll questions to these guidelines.    If he wanted to claim that there is consensus for these guidelines, he should have made the poll be about the guidelines in the first place.   For example, there is nothing in the poll concerning separate lists of "potential" candidates.  I object strongly to lists of vague "potential" candidates, and if any attempt is made to recreate that list, I plan to open an RFC on the subject, appeal to the Arbitration Committee, to Jimbo, or any other Wikipedia process that will keep that kind of speculation out of the Wikipedia.  Other Wikipedia policies, such as Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not take precedence over whatever Boshtang says the consensus is amongst visitors over the last few days to this Talk page.  As Radicalsubversiv points out, this isn't how Wikipedia works.  --BM 14:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And I think that deleting nonsensiscal "list" sections that consist of inherently point-of-view, unsubstantiated, unsourced, opinions as to who are "potential candidates" is better than having such lists.    Also, as I stated above, the list format is inherently not NPOV, since each entry reflects someone's POV that someone is a candidate, potential candidate, etc, and implicitly suppresses the equally valid POV that someone is not a candidate, potential candidate, etc.   --BM 14:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guidelines for active / potential candidate lists